You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Criteria for Class Certification Explained (Not Met Here)

The Fourth Department determined that an action by about 1900 patients who received insulin injections at defendant hospital was properly denied class certification. The patients were notified they may have been administered insulin by insulin pens shared by more than one patient and all were offered free testing for possible blood borne disease. No one tested positive for disease. The court concluded that whether a particular patient was actually exposed and whether exposure resulted in damages would have to be determined on a case by case basis. Therefore issues common to the class did not predominate:

“[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” … . The class representative “bears the burden of establishing compliance with [*2]the requirements of both CPLR 901 and 902” … .

Where, as here, no plaintiff has tested positive for the blood-borne disease to which he or she allegedly was exposed as a result of defendant’s negligence, a prerequisite to recovery is proof of actual exposure to the blood-borne disease … . The issue of actual exposure will require individualized determinations with respect to each plaintiff. Further, even if members of the proposed class could establish such actual exposure, “the extent of the damages resulting therefrom [is a] question[] requiring individual investigation and separate proof as to each individual claim” … . Thus, we conclude that, “even if there are common issues in this case, those issues do not predominate” …, and “[t]he predominance of individualized factual questions . . . renders this case unsuitable for class treatment” … . Westfall v Olean Gen. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07396, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, ,

The Absence of Plaintiff’s (Buyer’s) Attorney’s Explicit Unconditional Approval of the Purchase Contract Invalidated the Contract, Despite Plaintiff’s Desire to Go Through with the Purchase

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an explicit (not implied) unconditional attorney approval of a real estate contract is a necessary pre-requisite for a valid contract. Here plaintiff’s attorney had approved the contract on the condition that an environmental warranty be provided by the sellers, a condition which was never met or explicitly waived. Despite plaintiff’s desire to go through with the purchase, defendant-sellers’ attorney correctly determined there was no valid contract of sale because plaintiff’s attorney never explicitly unconditionally approved it:

As the Court of Appeals has stated, “[c]larity and predictability are particularly important” in the area of law dealing with attorney approval of real estate contracts … . Here, we conclude that, although plaintiff could have unilaterally waived the environmental conditions that [his attorney] placed on his approval of the contract inasmuch as those conditions benefitted only him …, neither [of plaintiff’s attorneys] clearly and unequivocally did so. Thus, the contract was never unconditionally approved by plaintiff’s attorneys. * * *

“[C]onsiderations of clarity, predictability, and professional responsibility weigh against reading an implied limitation into the attorney approval contingency” … . If [plaintiff’s attorney] intended to waive the conditions placed … on … approval of the contract, he should have done so expressly and not left anything for inference, or he should have stated that he, as plaintiff’s counsel, unconditionally approved the contract as proposed by defendants. Because he failed to do so, we conclude that there was not a valid contract between the parties and that the court erred in directing defendants to sell the property to plaintiffs. Pohlman v Madia, 2015 NY Slip Op 07379, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal

The Fourth Department noted that the court’s failure to advise the non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea required that the case be remitted to afford the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea:

We agree with defendant, a noncitizen, that County Court failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his felony plea, as required by People v Peque (22 NY3d 168). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea based upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that he faced the risk of being deported as a result of the plea (id. at 176…). People v Traverso, 2015 NY Slip Op 07376, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Conduct, Placing Ladder on Ice, Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the plaintiff’s conduct constituted the sole proximate cause of his injury (re: the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action).  Plaintiff placed his ladder on ice and was injured when the ladder slipped on the ice. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Liability under section 240 (1) “is contingent on a statutory violation and proximate cause” … . If both elements are established, “contributory negligence cannot defeat the plaintiff’s claim” … . There can be no liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), however, “when there is no violation and the worker’s actions . . . are the sole proximate cause’ of the accident” … . It is therefore “conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a plaintiff’s injury) to occupy the same ground as a plaintiff’s sole proximate cause for the injury. Thus, if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it. Conversely, if the plaintiff is solely to blame for the injury, it necessarily means that there has been no statutory violation” … .

While we agree with plaintiffs that evidence that a ladder is “structurally sound and not defective is not relevant on the issue of whether it was properly placed” …, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . * * *

In this case, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action inasmuch as they submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct in “refusing to use available, safe and appropriate equipment” was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Specifically, plaintiffs submitted deposition testimony from defendant’s customer, who purportedly owned the building on which plaintiff was working. The owner testified that, on the day of the accident, he advised plaintiff that the ladder was not placed in a safe position. The owner offered to retrieve safety equipment from his own truck that would help to remove ice from underneath the ladder and thereby stabilize the ladder. Plaintiff, however, rejected that offer. The owner also attempted to hold the ladder for plaintiff, but plaintiff again rejected the owner’s assistance. Fazekas v Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07403, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding With a Window Near the Basketball Court

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether he assumed the risk of injury from colliding with an breaking a window near the basketball court on which he was playing. Plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit alleging that the window should have been covered with a screen or otherwise made safe. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the window represented a risk over and above the dangers inherent in the sport:

It is well settled that, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks [that] are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “A plaintiff, however, will not be deemed to have consented to concealed or unreasonably increased risks’ ” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of a licensed architect who opined that the window involved in the accident did not meet industry standards for use in a gymnasium because the glass was not covered by a protective screen, nor was it laminated or tempered to withstand impact by a person … . Thus, there is a triable issue of fact whether defendant ” created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport’ ” of basketball… . Barends v Town of Cheektowaga, 2015 NY Slip Op 0737, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether the Municipality Created the Road Defect Thereby Negating the Notice Requirement—Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Sufficiently Identified Cause of Fall

The Fourth Department determined the requirement that the municipality be notified of a road defect before liability can attach did not preclude suit because there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the defect. The court also determined the plaintiff’s identification of the cause of the fall from his bicycle was sufficient to allow a jury to identify the cause without resort to speculation:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly denied that part of its motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it did not receive prior written notice of any defective or dangerous condition. Defendant asserted on its motion, and plaintiff conceded, that defendant did not have any such notice (…see generally Village Law § 6-628). Therefore, this case turns on whether defendant created the allegedly defective or dangerous condition with an “affirmative act of negligence” … . Here, plaintiff’s expert opined that the dangerous condition was caused by the intentional removal of paving material from the area adjacent to the water valve box cover at the time the roadway was resurfaced, and we therefore conclude that “plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant created a dangerous condition that caused the accident” … . * * *

Although a defendant ” may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall’ without engaging in speculation” …, we conclude that defendant failed to meet that burden here … . In support of its motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony and plaintiff’s testimony from a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, in which plaintiff testified that the accident occurred after the front wheel of the bicycle hit something on the roadway. Although plaintiff could not remember seeing the object with which he collided, he testified that the accident occurred in the immediate vicinity of a gap in the pavement adjacent to a water valve box cover, “thereby rendering any other potential cause of [his] 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’ ” … . Swietlikowski v Village of Herkimer, 2015 NY Slip Op 07405, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against Mechanic Who Inspected Defendant’s Car—Plaintiff Did Not Allege the Mechanic Created or Exacerbated Any Dangerous Condition—Therefore the Complaint Did Not Allege the Mechanic Owed Plaintiff a Duty of Care

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not state a cause of action against the mechanic who inspected the defendant’s (Golley’s) car, with which plaintiff’s motorcycle collided. Plaintiff alleged the mechanic negligently allowed Golley’s car to pass inspection. However, the complaint did not demonstrate the mechanic owed a duty of care to plaintiff by creating or exacerbating any dangerous condition in Golley’s car. The court explained the relevant law:

Here, plaintiff alleged with respect to defendant that he knowingly passed a vehicle for inspection that should not have passed, but he did not allege, either in the complaint or in opposition to the motion, that defendant created or exacerbated any dangerous condition relating to Golley’s vehicle by inspecting it. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did not conduct a proper inspection of Golley’s vehicle, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to allege that defendant assumed a duty to plaintiff by “launch[ing] an instrument of harm since there is no reason to believe that the inspection made [Golley’s] vehicle less safe than it was beforehand … . Murray v Golley, 2015 NY Slip Op 07395, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Failure to Warn Defendant that Failure to Appear Would Result in a Harsher Sentence Required Vacation of the Harsher Sentence

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s enhanced sentence because defendant was not warned that his failure to appear at sentencing would result in a harsher sentence. The matter was remitted for imposition of the bargained-for sentence or the opportunity to withdraw the plea:

“Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by objecting to the enhanced sentence or by moving to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction …, we nevertheless exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” … . We agree with defendant that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence inasmuch as it did not advise defendant at the time of his plea that “a harsher sentence than he bargained for could be imposed if [he] failed to appear at sentencing” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to impose the promised sentence or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Donald, 2015 NY Slip Op 07399, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Allegations In Motion to Suppress Insufficient to Warrant Hearing

In concluding a suppression hearing (re: statements by the defendant) was properly denied, the Fourth Department explained the relevant analytical criteria:

It is well settled that ” [h]earings are not automatic or generally available for the asking by boilerplate allegations’ ” … . Here, “[t]he allegations in defendant’s moving papers, when considered in the context of the detailed information provided to defendant, were insufficient to create a factual dispute requiring such a hearing . . . Defendant . . . did not address the specific allegations set forth in the felony complaint” and the other discovery materials provided to him …, which included the relevant grand jury testimony of the witness. Thus, the court properly denied the motion without conducting a hearing based on the insufficiency of the allegations and, under the circumstances of this case … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 07411, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)

The Fourth Department determined charges stemming from the possession of a weapon in two counties triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). The charges arose from an incident in which defendant discharged a firearm into the bedroom window of an occupied, residential home in Oswego County during the early morning hours of March 5, 2012. Defendant was apprehended by the police later that day at a motel in Onondaga County, where a handgun was found in his vehicle. Prior to his trial in Oswego County Court, defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to, in Onondaga County Court, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for the handgun recovered from his vehicle. * * *

It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” … . “When successive prosecutions are involved, the guarantee serves a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit . . . and protects the accused from attempts to secure additional punishment after a prior conviction and sentence” … . This case presents a prototypical instance of a constitutional double jeopardy violation inasmuch as defendant was prosecuted and convicted of a crime in Oswego County to which he had pleaded guilty in Onondaga County. In both instances, the charge was the same: criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3).

We reject the People’s contention that double jeopardy did not attach because defendant was convicted in Oswego County before he was sentenced on his guilty plea in Onondaga County. “[T]ermination of a criminal action by entry of a guilty plea constitutes a previous prosecution for double jeopardy purposes” … . People v Gardner, 2015 NY Slip Op 07363, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

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