You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge’s failure to apprise counsel of the specific, substantive contents of a jury note requesting a readback of testimony required reversal (in the absence of preservation):

As the court brought the jury into the courtroom to respond to the first two notes, the jury gave a third note to the court. The court told the jury that it would respond to the first two notes at that time, and would then discuss the issue raised in the third note with counsel after sending the jury back to the jury room. The court stated that the “third note [had] not yet [been] shown to counsel nor have we had an opportunity to discuss it.” The record further reflects that the jury resumed its deliberations after the court provided requested testimony and instruction in response to the first two notes, and then rendered a verdict of guilty. The third note, which is included in the record, indicates that the jury was seeking the testimony of a particular witness on a specific topic, but there is nothing in the record indicating that the note was shown to counsel, or that it was read into the record before the jury rendered its verdict. Where, as here, “the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . [,] preservation is not required” … , and we conclude that the “[c]ourt committed reversible error by violating the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note before accepting a verdict” … . People v Brink, 2015 NY Slip Op 09450, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF JURY NOTE CONTENTS REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURY NOTE (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF CONTENTS REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ORAMA ERROR (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF CONTENTS OF JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION)

,

IN THIS VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, DAUGHTER’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court, in a visitation-modification proceeding, properly found that the daughter’s out-of-court statements about alleged sex abuse were not reliably corroborated:

“It is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody [and visitation] cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on the Legislature’s intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as evidenced in Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi)’ . . . , where . . . the statements are corroborated” … . “Although the degree of corroboration [required] is low, a threshold of reliability’ must be met” … . “The repetition of an accusation does not corroborate a child’s prior statement’ . . . , although the reliability threshold may be satisfied by the testimony of an expert” … . “Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements alleging incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated . . . , and its findings must be accorded deference on appeal where . . . the . . . [c]ourt is primarily confronted with issues of credibility” … .

Here, there is no direct or physical evidence of abuse, and thus “the case turns almost entirely on issues of credibility” … . Although the mother correctly notes that some corroboration may be provided through the consistency of a child’s statements and that a child’s out-of-court statements may be corroborated by testimony regarding the child’s increased sexualized behavior … , the court determined here that the mother’s witnesses—who provided the corroborative testimony regarding the daughter’s purportedly consistent statements and sexualized behavior—were not credible. Matter of East v Giles, 2015 NY Slip Op 09466, 4th Dept 12-23-15

FAMILY LAW (CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/EVIDENCE (IN VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/HEARSAY (IN VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)

,

Arbitrator’s Misapplication of Law Is Not Reviewable by a Court

In affirming the denial of an application to vacate an arbitrator’s award (in which petitioners were found to have wrongfully removed trees), the Fourth Department noted that the misapplication of law by an arbitrator is not reviewable by a court:

We reject, however, petitioners’ contention that the arbitrator’s alleged misapplication of RPAPL 861 is a sufficient ground to vacate the award in its entirety. “An arbitrator’s resolution of questions of substantive law or fact is not judicially reviewable” … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, we conclude that such error is beyond our review. Matter of Svenson v Swegan, 2015 NY Slip Op 08525, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Criteria for a Warrantless Blood Swab

In affirming defendant’s murder conviction, the Fourth Department noted that a swab of a blood stain on defendant’s body was properly taken without a warrant. The DNA in the swab matched the victim’s. The court explained the criteria for a warrantless swab:

Defendant agreed to give his clothing to the police and, when he removed his shirt, an officer noticed a reddish brown stain on defendant’s chest that appeared to be blood. When asked what it was, defendant responded that it was a bruise. The officer swabbed the area, which later tested positive for blood and matched the victim’s DNA. Where, as here, the police did not obtain a warrant for the seizure of the blood evidence, “the police had to satisfy two requirements in order to justify the action taken. First, the police had to have reasonable cause to believe the [blood stain] constituted evidence, or tended to demonstrate that an offense had been committed, or, that a particular person participated in the commission of an offense . . . Second, there had to have been an exigent circumstance of sufficient magnitude to justify immediate seizure without resort to a warrant” … . We agree with the court that the police had reasonable cause to believe that the blood stain on defendant’s chest constituted evidence, and that the seizure was appropriate because it could have been easily destroyed by defendant … . People v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 08540, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Erroneous Admission of Evidence of Specific Prior Crimes and Bad Acts Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined evidence of prior crimes and bad acts on the part of the defendant (which took place just prior to defendant’s arrest) were properly admitted to provide background information explaining the actions taken by the police. But other evidence of defendant’s prior crimes and bad acts should not have been admitted and the errors warranted a new trial:

… [A]lthough the court properly permitted the People to present evidence of the fact that he was on parole at the time of his arrest, the court erred in permitting the People to detail that he was on parole for a conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The specific crime of which defendant was convicted does not constitute necessary background information, and it does not fit within any other recognized exception to the Molineux rule, i.e., motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, or common plan or scheme … .

… [T]he court erred in ruling that defense counsel [in cross-examining a police officer] opened the door to the admission of additional evidence of uncharged crimes and prior bad acts that the court had initially precluded by an earlier determination. * * *

…[D]efense counsel did not challenge on cross-examination the officer’s credibility on the issue whether such prior interactions with defendant took place, thereby permitting the officer to fully explain the nature of the interactions… . People v Dowdell, 2015 NY Slip Op 08567, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

New Relicensing Regulations Can Be Applied Retroactively (Re: Alcohol-Related Driving Convictions)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles had the power to retroactively apply regulations re: the relicensing of persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions:

… [T]here is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner erred in retroactively applying the amended regulations to his application … . “[P]etitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by [the Commissioner] under her discretionary powers . . . Thus, [the Commissioner] remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing— i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions” … . Matter of Underwood v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 08545, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

Trustee Was Not Negligent In Its Management of Three Trusts; Surrogate’s Court’s Findings Reversed

Reversing Surrogate’s Court, the Fourth Department determined the trustee of three trusts initially funded by Kodak stock was not negligent in its management of the trusts. The Fourth Department analyzed each trust using the relevant investment standards:

We conclude that the Surrogate erred in sustaining the objections to the three accounts because objectants failed to sustain their burden of proving that petitioner failed to diversify the trusts prudently within a reasonable time, and also failed to establish a reasonable date from which a surcharge could be calculated. As we explained in Knox (98 AD3d at 308-309), petitioner was subject to three separate standards of care as trustee: “[f]rom [1966] until 1970, the standard was the common-law rule, which provided that the trustee is bound to employ such diligence and such prudence in the care and management, as in general, prudent [persons] of discretion and intelligence in such matters, employ in their own like affairs’ . . . From 1970 to 1995, the standard of care was the prudent person rule established in EPTL 11-2.2 (a) (1), which provided that [a] fiduciary holding funds for investment may invest the same in such securities as would be acquired by prudent [persons] of discretion and intelligence in such matters who are seeking a reasonable income and preservation of their capital’ . . . Effective, January 1, 1995, the Prudent Investor Act (EPTL 11-2.3 [L 1994, ch 609, § 1]) created a new standard of care by providing that [a] trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill and caution to make and implement investment and management decisions as a prudent investor would for the entire portfolio, taking into account the purposes and terms and provisions of the governing instrument’ (EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [2]). The statute lists various elements of the prudent investor standard, including: pursuing an overall investment strategy; considering numerous factors pertaining to the overall portfolio including, e.g., general economic conditions; and diversifying assets (see EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [3] [A]-[C]).” Notably, the “Prudent Investor Act requires a trustee to diversify assets unless the trustee reasonably determines that it is in the interests of the beneficiaries not to diversify’ ” (Janes, 90 NY2d at 49 n, quoting EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [3] [C]; see Knox, 98 AD3d at 310). Matter of Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 08533, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

Extraordinary Circumstances Warranted Award of Custody to Non-Parent

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Family Court properly awarded custody of the child to the child’s half brother:

It is well-settled that, “as between a parent and nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” … . Here, the evidence established that the mother and the father changed residences frequently over a period of 18 months, and they were evicted from one residence and were homeless for several months, living in a tent or their vehicle. The child changed schools five times in four school districts over that same time period and, with each change in school, the child missed at least several days and sometimes several weeks of school. Indeed, we note that “[u]nrebutted evidence of excessive school absences [is] sufficient to establish . . . educational neglect” … . The evidence also supports the court’s conclusion that the child had poor hygiene. Thus, the record establishes that the mother and the father have exhibited “behavior evincing utter indifference and irresponsibility,” and the court therefore properly concluded that extraordinary circumstances exist…  .

It is well settled that, “once extraordinary circumstances are found, the court must then make the disposition that is in the best interest[s] of the child” … , and we agree with the court that the child’s best interests are served by awarding petitioner custody of the child with visitation to the mother and the father… . Matter of Stent v Schwartz, 2015 NY Slip Op 08535, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

State’s Violation of Inmate Disciplinary-Hearing Due Process Rules Did Not Entitle Inmate to Summary Judgment In His Unlawful Confinement Action

The Fourth Department determined the 3rd Department’s finding that the state violated inmate disciplinary-hearing (due process) rules did not entitle the inmate to summary judgment in his unlawful confinement action. The 3rd Department annulled the inmate’s disciplinary determination based upon the state’s (due process) rule violations. The inmate then sued the state for unlawful confinement (apparently based upon the discipline imposed by the annulled determination). The Fourth Department found that the state’s rule violation merely removed the state’s absolute immunity, allowing the unlawful confinement action to go forward. However, the inmate must prove all the elements of unlawful confinement to prevail. A question of fact remained on the “privilege” element:

It is well settled that, where, as here, the actions of correction personnel have violated the due process safeguards contained in 7 NYCRR parts 252 through 254, those actions “[will] not receive immunity” … . Contrary to claimant’s contention, however, the absence of an immunity defense does not entitle claimant to partial summary judgment on liability on his unlawful confinement cause of action. As defendant correctly contends, the “removal of immunity . . . does not result in absolute liability to defendant because claimant is still required to prove the merits of his claim” … . “Where, as here, a prison inmate contends that he was wrongfully confined as a result of the flawed prison disciplinary proceeding, once the absolute immunity is removed by showing that the governing rules and regulations were not followed, he [or she] may recover damages if he [or she] is able to prove the traditional elements of the tort of [unlawful confinement]: (1) that the confinement was intentional; (2) that Claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) that Claimant did not consent to the confinement; and (4) that the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . “In other words, not every violation of the rules and regulations governing the imposition of prison discipline will result in liability on the part of the State; the rule violations merely remove the cloak of absolute immunity and make the State potentially liable, if liability would be imposed under common law tort principles” … .

Here, there is no dispute concerning the first three elements of the unlawful confinement cause of action, and the dispositive issue is whether claimant established as a matter of law that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. He did not. Moustakos v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08318, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

,

Possession of Modest Amount of Drugs Is Not Sufficient to Make Out a Prima Facie Case of an Intent to Sell

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s possession of less than an ounce of drugs was not sufficient to make out a prima facie case of defendant’s intent to sell:

We reject the People’s contention that the evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie case that defendant possessed the cocaine with the intent to sell it. Although “defendant’s possession of a substantial’ quantity of drugs can be cited as circumstantial proof of an intent to sell . . . , it cannot be said as a matter of law that the quantity of uncut and unpackaged drugs possessed in this case permitted an inference that defendant intended to sell them. More than mere possession of a modest quantity of drugs, not packaged for sale and unaccompanied by any other saleslike conduct, must be present for such an inference to arise” … .Consequently, the court properly concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant possessed a controlled substance with intent to sell it … . People v Nellons, 2015 NY Slip Op 08305, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

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