You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

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)

,

MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motions to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted. The issue was whether plaintiffs established “serious injury” in a car accident. The Fourth Department explained the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict:

 

It is well established that ” [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” … . “Although [t]hat determination is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, . . . if the verdict is one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence, the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury” … . Furthermore, “it is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

Here, we conclude that the court erred in setting aside the jury’s verdict inasmuch as the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendant’s witnesses and reject the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of serious injury, we nevertheless conclude that the jury was entitled to reject the opinions of plaintiffs’ physicians … . The jury’s interpretation of the evidence was not ” palpably irrational’ ” … , or ” palpably wrong’ ” … , and the court therefore erred in granting plaintiffs’ motions. McMillian v Burden, 2016 NY Slip Op 00851, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL, MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/VERDICT (CIVIL, MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

LAW FIRM’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN SETTLED EXPLAINED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s counterclaim alleging legal malpractice in a divorce proceeding which was settled should have been dismissed. The court explained the malpractice criteria in an action which was settled:

 

Defendant contends, inter alia, that but for plaintiff’s alleged negligence she would have received a more favorable result had she proceeded to trial. Generally, “to recover damages for legal malpractice, a [client] must prove (1) that the [law firm] failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) proximate cause, (3) damages, and (4) that the [client] would have been successful in the underlying action had the [law firm] exercised due care” … . In a legal malpractice action in which there was no settlement of the underlying action, it is well settled that, “[t]o obtain summary judgment dismissing [the] complaint . . . , a [law firm] must demonstrate that the [client] is unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of its legal malpractice cause of action” … . A settlement of the underlying action does not, per se, preclude a legal malpractice action … . Where, as here, however, the underlying action has been settled, the focus becomes whether “settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” … . Where the law firm meets its burden under this test, the client must then provide proof raising triable issues of fact whether the settlement was compelled by mistakes of counsel, and “[m]ere speculation about a loss resulting from an attorney’s [alleged] poor performance is insufficient” … . Conclusory allegations that merely reflect a subsequent dissatisfaction with the settlement, or that the client would be in a better position but for the settlement, without more, do not make out a claim of legal malpractice … . Chamberlain, D’Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, LLP v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00841, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CRITERIA WHERE UNDERLYING ACTION IS SETTLED EXPLAINED)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (CRITERIA WHERE UNDERLYING ACTION IS SETTLED EXPLAINED)/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CRITERIA WHERE UNDERLYING ACTION IS SETTLED EXPLAINED)

, ,

POLICE HAD NO REASON TO DETAIN DEFENDANT-PASSENGER AFTER TRAFFIC TICKET ISSUED TO DRIVER, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL AS WELL.

In reversing defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon, the Fourth Department determined a new trial was required because defendant’s statements should have been suppressed, and because of prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant was a passenger in a car which was stopped for having a suspended registration. After the driver was given a ticket, defendant asked if he could leave. He was told by the police he could not leave until an inventory search of the car was completed. Defendant’s statements were made subsequently. The Fourth Department held that, once the ticket was given to the driver, the police had no reason to detain defendant further. The Fourth Department addressed the prosecutorial misconduct in the interest of justice (despite the lack of preservation). With respect to prosecutorial misconduct, the court wrote:

 

During cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned the driver of the vehicle regarding an out-of-court conversation between them, asking her whether she came to his office and admitted that the defendant “[tried] to get [her] to come and take the blame for the gun.” After the witness denied for the second time that such a conversation had taken place, the prosecutor rhetorically asked, “[b]ut you were the one who was convicted of Scheme to Defraud, correct?” By challenging the witness with respect to the out-of-court conversation, the prosecutor both improperly interjected his personal opinion as to the truthfulness of the testimony and suggested to the jury that his own, unsworn version of events should be credited … .

In addition, instances of prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial. The prosecutor improperly denigrated defendant’s case by referring to certain contentions as “[a]ll this nonsense,” made repeated non sequiturs distinguishing the case from the John F. Kennedy assassination, and asserted that the defense was “twisting things” and employing “tricks” … . The prosecutor compounded those statements by consistently commenting on witness credibility, calling the defense witnesses “a cast of characters,” “people com[ing] out of the woodwork,” and specifically referring to one witness as “a piece of work.” The prosecutor accused the defense witnesses of lying, and also argued that one could not believe a certain witness who had a lawyer advising her while testifying, stating that he “couldn’t tell if those were her words or her lawyer’s words when she was talking.” Not only did the prosecutor state his belief that witnesses had lied, he also alleged that the witnesses must have met secretly in order to plan and collude regarding their testimony. That was patently improper … .

In addition to criticizing defendant’s case and witnesses, the prosecutor also engaged in misconduct on summation by suggesting that an acquittal would require the jury to find a conspiracy by law enforcement … , by improperly suggesting that defendant bore a burden of proof … , and by misstating a key point of law regarding detention incident to a traffic stop… , People v Porter, 2016 NY Slip Op 00852, 4th Dept 2-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASON TO DETAIN)/CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASON TO DETAIN)/SUPPRESSION (MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASON TO DETAIN)/ATTORNEYS (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

ANONYMOUS 911 CALL COUPLED WITH POLICE OFFICER’S OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT.

The Fourth Department determined an anonymous 911 call combined with the police officer’s observations provided the officer with reasonable suspicion defendant had a weapon, justifying detention of the defendant:

 

Although “a radioed tip may have almost no legal significance when it stands alone, . . . when considered in conjunction with other supportive facts, it may thus collectively, although not independently, support a reasonable suspicion justifying intrusive police action” … . Here … that “additional support can … be provided by factors rapidly developing or observed at the scene” … . The evidence at the hearing established that ” the report of the 911 caller was based on the contemporaneous observation of conduct that was not concealed’ ” … . Upon the officer’s arrival, defendant was positioned at a bladed angle toward the officer with his hand in his waistband or sweatshirt pocket, ” common sanctuar[ies] for weapons’ ” … . …

“A police officer directed to a location by a general radio call cannot reasonably be instructed to close his eyes to reality—neither the officer nor justice should be that blind. The officer was rightfully and dutifully on the scene and could not ignore possible indications of criminality, nor is there any logical reason for him to reject the natural mental connection between newly encountered facts and the substance of the radio message. More importantly, there certainly is no justification for holding that an officer in such a situation cannot take note of a significant occurrence indicating a possible threat to his life, merely because the call which directed him to the scene was in and of itself an insufficient predicate for intrusive action against a particular person” … . In accordance with Court of Appeals’ precedent, we conclude that “it would be unrealistic to require [the responding officer], who had been told that [a] gunm[a]n might be present, to assume the risk that the defendant’s conduct was in fact innocuous or innocent. Such an assumption would be at odds with his reasonably acquired belief that he was in danger and his constitutionally authorized action . . . It would, indeed, be absurd to suggest that a police officer has to await the glint of steel before he can act to preserve his safety” … . People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 00789, 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)

, ,

PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.

The Fourth Department admonished the prosecutor for improper remarks in summation, but did not reverse the conviction. The court found the evidence of “physical injury” insufficient to support the Assault 3rd conviction and reversed that unpreserved error under a “weight of the evidence” analysis:

Despite this Court’s repeated admonitions to prosecutors not to engage in misconduct during summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence when he insinuated that the victim regretted that she did not get out of defendant’s vehicle … . The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and bolstered the victim’s credibility, and did so repeatedly, by commenting on how difficult it was for her to recount her ordeal, first to the police, then before the grand jury, and finally in her trial testimony … . In addition, the prosecutor improperly suggested that the jury experiment on themselves to see how quickly bite marks fade … . Nevertheless, “[a]lthough we do not condone the prosecutor’s conduct, it cannot be said here that it caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law’ ” … . We admonish the prosecutor, however, “and remind him that prosecutors have special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … . * * *

We conclude, upon our independent review of the evidence, that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained a physical injury … . The indictment alleged that defendant caused physical injury to the victim “by striking her in the face.” Although the victim testified that defendant struck her in the face, and photographs of the victim showed swelling and discoloration of the left side of her face, the victim did not testify that she suffered substantial pain from that injury or that she sought medical attention for it … . People v Gibson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09722, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/EVIDENCE (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY RE: ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION)/ASSAULT 3RD (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, MADE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, WAS NOT UNTIMELY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED ON THAT GROUND, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s request to proceed pro se, made prior to the prosecution’s opening statement, was not untimely and should not have been summarily denied on that ground. A new trial was ordered:

… [T]he judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial granted because the court erred in summarily denying, as untimely, his request to proceed pro se … . “Although requests [to proceed pro se] on the eve of trial are discouraged, the Court of Appeals has found that a request may be considered timely when it is interposed prior to the prosecution’s opening statement,’ as here”… . People v Smith. 2015 NY Slip Op 09757, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE MADE ON EVE OF TRIAL NOT UNTIMELY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE MADE ON EVE OF TRIAL NOT UNTIMELY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

, ,

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A TRIABLE ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO CONTROL HIS SEXUAL CONDUCT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-sex-offender’s motion for a directed verdict in an Article 10 trial should not have been granted. Petitioner had been deemed a dangerous sex offender and was committed to a secure facility. In the instant proceeding, petitioner sought release under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment. The state presented evidence petitioner had been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, paraphila otherwise specified, and cannabis dependence.  The majority concluded that the state’s expert, Dr. Prince, had presented sufficient additional evidence, including a history of defendant’s sexual behavior, his response to treatment, and the results of psychological tests, to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had serious difficulty in controlling difficulty controlling his sexual conduct:

When coupled with the evidence of petitioner’s clear, well-defined cycle of offending that begins with becoming frustrated, the deficits in his recent treatment plan on that specific area, and his stagnating course of treatment, we conclude that Dr. Prince’s opinion and the supporting evidence, ” when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, [establish that petitioner is a] . . . dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil commitment[, rather than a] dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case’ ” … . Thus, respondents submitted sufficient evidence that, if it is credited by the factfinder, would establish that petitioner has a condition, disease or disorder “that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [petitioner] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (§ 10.03 [i] …). Consequently, we conclude that, if the factfinder accepts that evidence, there is a “rational process by which the [factfinder] could find for [respondents] as against” petitioner … . Matter of Wright v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09711, 4th Dept 12-31-15

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)

,

VILLAGE’S AGREEMENT TO SELL ONE MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY FOR TRANSPORT TO PENNSYLVANIA WAS A TYPE I ACTION REQUIRING SEQRA REVIEW.

Upon remittitur after reversal by the Court of Appeals, the Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings re: the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement entered into by the Village of Painted Post. The Lease Agreement concerned the construction of a railroad transloading facility and the Water Agreement concerned the sale of one million gallons of water per day (gpd) to be transported (by rail) to Pennsylvania. The Fourth Department determined the Water Agreement was a Type I, not Type II, action which required review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Because the Village of Painted Post did not conduct a SEQRA review of the Water Agreement, the relevant village resolutions were annulled and a consolidated SEQRA review of both the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement was ordered:

Although the Water Agreement does not call for the use of “ground or surface water in excess of [two million gpd]” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [6] [ii]) and thus is not a Type I action under that subsection, Type I actions also include “any Unlisted action[] that exceeds 25 percent of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [10]). Where, as here, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has set a threshold clarifying that the use of a certain amount of a natural resource, e.g., land or water, constitutes a Type I action, it is reasonable to assume that the DEC has “implicitly determined that an annexation of less than [that threshold] is an [U]nlisted action’ ” … . We thus conclude therefrom that the Water Agreement is implicitly an Unlisted action. Inasmuch as there is also evidence in the record that the transloading facility may be substantially contiguous to a publicly owned park and the Water Agreement calls for the use of surface water in the amount of one million gpd, i.e., 50% of the threshold in section 617.4 (b) (6) (ii), the Water Agreement could also be deemed a Type I action under 6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (10).

Consequently, SEQRA review was required for the Water Agreement. Although the Village conducted a SEQRA review of the Lease Agreement, segmentation, i.e., the division of environmental review for different sections or stages of a project (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]), is generally disfavored … . We thus conclude that the court properly determined, on the merits of the first cause of action, that all of respondent Village’s resolutions should be annulled and that a consolidated SEQRA review of both agreements was required. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 09707, 4th Dept 12-31-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/WATER (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)

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