You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

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

 

Motion Papers Sufficient to Warrant a Probable Cause Hearing, Criteria Described

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion papers were sufficient to warrant a probable cause hearing. No affidavit from the defendant is required. The Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria:

As the People correctly concede, the court erred in determining that defendant was not entitled to a hearing because his motion papers did not include an affidavit from defendant (see CPL 710.60 [1]…). The court also erred in determining that the factual assertions contained in defendant’s moving papers were insufficient to warrant a hearing.

In determining whether a hearing is required pursuant to CPL 710.60, “the sufficiency of defendant’s factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” … . Here, considering defendant’s limited access to information regarding the basis for the actions of the arresting officers, he “could do little more than dispute the circumstances surrounding his arrest . . . [D]efendant’s lack of access to information precluded more specific factual allegations and created factual disputes, the resolution of which required a hearing” … . People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 07392, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Criteria for “Interest of Justice” Extension of Time to Effect Service Explained

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff an extension of time to effect service on defendant in the interest of justice.  An “interest of justice” analysis in this context does not require a showing of good cause for the extension:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, if service is not timely made, “the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.” Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension, we conclude that the court properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion in the interest of justice. That standard “requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .  Swaggard v Dagonese, 2015 NY Slip Op 07398, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Law Re: Liquidated Damages Explained

The Fourth Department concluded that defendant’s papers were not sufficient to warrant summary judgment invalidating a liquidated damages provision of an agreement, but noted that plaintiff may not be able to prove the validity of the provision at trial. Liquidated damages are valid only if they bear a reasonable relationship to the loss; otherwise they constitute an unenforceable penalty. Here plaintiff sold defendant a car with the condition that the car not be re-sold for one year. Defendant sold the car two weeks after purchase and plaintiff sued to enforce the $20,000 liquidated damages provision of the “agreement not to export.”  The court explained the relevant law:

Liquidated damages are enforceable only to the extent that they comprise ” an estimate, made by the parties at the time they enter into their agreement, of the extent of the injury that would be sustained as a result of breach of the agreement’ ” … . As a general rule, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable only if the stipulated amount of damages “bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . If, however, the clause provides for damages that are ” plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced’ ” … .

Here, defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the amount of liquidated damages does not bear a reasonable relation to plaintiff’s actual damages. In support of his motion, defendant relied on affidavits from himself and his attorney, both of whom asserted, upon information and belief only, that plaintiff sustained no actual damages, and that the liquidated damages clause is therefore unenforceable. Defendant offered no evidence in support of those conclusory assertions, and therefore failed to meet his initial burden of proof … . Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” … . Although defendant may be correct in contending that plaintiff cannot establish at trial that it sustained any actual damages as a result of defendant’s breach of the Agreement, it is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must affirmatively establish the merits of its cause of action or defense “and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . Great Lakes Motor Corp. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 07394, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Termination for Insubordination Proper

The Fourth Department determined that petitioner, the former chief operator of a city water treatment plant, was properly terminated for insubordination. Petitioner complained directly to the NYS Department of Health about a supervisor’s decision, thereby allegedly violating directives concerning the chain of command. Matter of Gaffney v Addison, 2015 NY Slip Op 07372, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Gun Found Wedged Under a Rock After an Illegal Police Pursuit Was Not “Abandoned,” Suppression of Gun Was Proper

The Fourth Department determined that all the fruits of an illegal pursuit and arrest of the defendant were properly suppressed. Defendant crossed a street, causing a car to stop abruptly to avoid hitting him. The police pursued defendant, intending to arrest him for disorderly conduct. The police noticed defendant was carrying a bulky object held in his shirt. After capturing the defendant, the police found a gun wedged under a rock. The People conceded that the pursuit of defendant was unlawful because his crossing the street did not constitute disorderly conduct. The only question on appeal was whether the gun was abandoned, and therefore not subject to suppression. The court explained the relevant test for abandoned property in this context:

It is well established that property seized as a result of an unlawful pursuit must be suppressed, unless that property was abandoned … . “Property which has in fact been abandoned is outside the protection of the constitutional provisions . . . There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights . . . [and, thus,] [t]he proof supporting abandonment should reasonably beget the exclusive inference of . . . throwing away’ ” … . “The test to be applied is whether defendant’s action . . . was spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality or whether it was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and was thus attenuated from it” … . Here, the court properly concluded that defendant’s action was spontaneous and precipitated by the unlawful pursuit by the police … . The court thus properly determined that the People failed to establish that defendant had abandoned the gun and, consequently, properly suppressed the gun. People v Mueses, 2015 NY Slip Op 07088, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

Absence of Information About the Source of Double Hearsay in the Search Warrant Application Required Suppression

The Fourth Department determined a search warrant application which was based upon double hearsay did not provide probable cause to search because the initial source of the information was inadequately described.  There was no way to determine the reliability of the source or the basis of the source’s information (Aguilar-Spinelli test). An amended warrant which sought seizure of items in plain sight during the search was rendered invalid by the defective initial warrant:

It is well settled that a search warrant may be issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur …, and there is sufficient evidence from which to form a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime may be found inside the location sought to be searched … . It is equally well settled that, under New York law, “[p]robable cause may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information . . . New York’s present law applies the Aguilar-Spinelli rule for evaluating secondhand information and holds that if probable cause is based on hearsay statements, the police must establish that the informant had some basis for the knowledge he [or she] transmitted to them and that he [or she] was reliable” … . “Notably, where the information is based upon double hearsay, the foregoing requirements must be met with respect to each individual providing information” … .People v Bartholomew, 2015 NY Slip Op 07112, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

, ,

Pat-down Search Pursuant to a Stop for a Traffic Infraction Unlawful—Injury to Officer During Unlawful Search Will Not Support Assault Conviction (Which Requires the Officer Be Injured Performing a Lawful Duty)

The Fourth Department determined the pat-down search of defendant after he was stopped for walking in the street was unlawful. Therefore the assault charge stemming from injury to the police officer during the unlawful search was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The officer was not performing a “lawful duty” at the time of the injury (a required element of the assault charge):

A person is guilty of assault in the second degree under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) when, “[w]ith intent to prevent . . . a police officer . . . from performing a lawful duty . . . , he or she causes physical injury to such . . . police officer” (id.). Here, a police officer stopped defendant for walking in the middle of a roadway in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1156 (a), and the suppression court found that the search of defendant’s person by another officer was not lawful … . We have previously held that even the more limited pat-down search of a traffic offender “is not authorized unless, when the [person or] vehicle is stopped, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the officer is in danger or there is probable cause for believing that the offender is guilty of a crime rather than merely a simple traffic infraction’ ” (People v Everett, 82 AD3d 1666, 1666, …). Here, as in Everett, the search of defendant was unauthorized, and the officer was injured only after he attempted to perform the unlawful search (see id.). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People …, we thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the officer was injured while undertaking a lawful duty … . People v Richardson, 2015 NY Slip Op 07069, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

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