You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

State Claims Re: Alleged Release of Toxins During Love Canal Clean-Up Not Precluded (Preempted) by Federal CERCLA Remedy

The Fourth Department determined state claims for negligence, abnormally dangerous activity, private nuisance and trespass were not precluded by a federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) remedy re: the Love Canal toxic contamination:

As the federal District Court explained, “it is uniformly recognized that, in enacting CERCLA, Congress expressly disclaimed an intent to preempt state tort liability for damages caused by the release of hazardous substances” … . District Court therefore granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking to remand the matter to Supreme Court, determining that “plaintiffs seek relief only under common law theories of negligence, . . . private nuisance, and trespass” … , “[and t]he claims . . . do not expressly challenge the effectiveness of the [CERCLA] remedy . . . Rather, plaintiffs seek only to be made whole for any harm proximately caused by defendants’ conduct, whether in performance of operation, maintenance, and monitoring obligations with respect to the remedy, or during the [sewer project]” … .

* * * The doctrine of judicial estoppel prohibits a party who has assumed a position in one legal proceeding, and prevailed on that position, from assuming a contrary position in another proceeding because the party’s interests have changed … . Here, however, we conclude that plaintiffs’ position was consistent in both the federal and state court matters inasmuch as they maintained that they did not challenge the CERCLA remedy, as the moving defendants alleged, but instead challenged defendants’ performance of their respective obligations in executing the CERCLA remedY. Abbo-Bradley v City of Niagara Falls, 2015 NY Slip Op 07145, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

Pleading Requirements for “Goods Sold and Delivered” Cause of Action Succinctly Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on its “goods sold and delivered” cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the pleading requirements:

… [P]laintiff’s complaint, with its attached invoices, satisfied the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (f) … . The invoices provided the requisite degree of specificity inasmuch as they permitted defendant ” to respond in a meaningful way on an item-by-item basis’ ” … . Each invoice set forth the date of the order, the specific items ordered and delivered, the quantity ordered and delivered, as well as the price per unit and the total price for the quantity ordered … . Defendant was thus required to indicate specifically in its verified answer “those items [it] dispute[d] and whether in respect of delivery or performance, reasonable value or agreed price” (CPLR 3016 [f]). Defendant failed to do so and, therefore, Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiff’s motion on the cause of action for goods sold and delivered … . Erie Materials, Inc. v Central City Roofing Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07137, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined the indictment did not meet the “specificity” pleading-requirements for perjury, and the charge to the grand jury was similarly defective:

“An indictment for perjury must contain all of the essential elements of the offense . . . and must set forth the alleged false testimony so as to apprise the defendant of the particular offense with which he [or she] is charged” … . Here, “[n]othing in the record before us gives any indication what the [grand] jury thought was false” … . Because the indictment failed to identify the particular falsehoods alleged to have been made by defendant, the indictment failed to provide her with the requisite “fair notice of the accusations made against [her], so that [she would] be able to prepare a defense” … .

Moreover, despite numerous pretrial requests for particularization by defense counsel, the People never identified the particular falsehoods allegedly made by defendant … . Rather, the prosecutor identified particular subject “areas that [he] believe[d] [were] perjurious.” ” To allow the prosecutor, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jur[ors] at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure. For a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him [or her]’ . . . The lack of specific allegations in the District Attorney’s charge to the [g]rand [j]ury on the perjury count renders it impossible to determine which specific statement or statements of [defendant] the [g]rand [j]ury found to be false. It is impossible to determine what the [g]rand [j]ury intended when it voted on the perjury charge . . . Since the [g]rand [j]ury presentation and legal instructions do not answer these questions, the perjury count [should have been] dismissed”… . People v Heatherly, 2015 NY Slip Op 07111, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

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

 

, ,

Where Arrest Was Not Authorized, Conviction for Resisting Arrest Was Against the Weight of the Evidence

The People conceded defendant’s actions (apparently simply standing with a group) did not constitute disorderly conduct. Therefore, the Fourth Department determined, defendant’s arrest for disorderly conduct was unauthorized and his conviction of resisting arrest was against the weight of the evidence:

As the People correctly concede, the evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrest of defendant for disorderly conduct was authorized. The Court of Appeals has “made clear that evidence of actual or threatened public harm (inconvenience, annoyance or alarm’) is a necessary element of a valid disorderly conduct charge” …, and there is no evidence of such actual or threatened harm here. Inasmuch as it “is not disorderly conduct . . . for a small group of people, even people of bad reputation, to stand peaceably on a street corner” …, the arrest of defendant for engaging in that conduct was not authorized. “There being no probable cause that authorized defendant’s arrest, [he] cannot be guilty of resisting arrest” … . Thus, we conclude that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” … . People v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 07100, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

Absence of Corroboration of Confession to Attempted Robbery Required Dismissal of Attempted Robbery Count—However Dismissal of the First Degree Murder and Felony Murder Counts, Both of Which Were Based Upon the Attempted Robbery, Was Not Required—The Death Itself Provided the Requisite Corroboration

The Fourth Department, in a detailed decision addressing several substantive issues not summarized here, found there was no proof of the attempted robbery count except defendant’s confession. The absence of corroboration required reversal of the attempted robbery count. However, with respect to the first degree murder and felony murder counts (for which attempted robbery was the underlying felony) the death itself provided sufficient corroboration:

“A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him [or her] without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed” (CPL 60.50…). With respect to the counts of murder in the first degree and felony murder, it is well settled that “CPL 60.50 does not require corroboration of defendant’s confession to the underlying predicate felony” to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree or felony murder, when the charge is based on a murder committed in the course of and in furtherance of one of many enumerated felonies … . “The effect of the confession corroboration statute is to require proof of the corpus delicti” … . With felony murder and murder in the first degree, the corpus delicti is a death resulting from someone’s criminality, i.e., a death that did not occur by suicide, disease or accident … . The fact that the victim was found dead as the result of a gunshot wound is sufficient corroboration … .

The same analysis does not apply to the underlying felony itself. Where, as here, there is no corroboration of a defendant’s confession with respect to the underlying felony, that count of the indictment charging the defendant with the underlying felony must be dismissed … . People v Harper, 2015 NY Slip Op 07064, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

Use of an Address to Which the Respondent Was in the Process of Moving Did Not Constitute a False Statement within the Meaning of the Election Law

In an action seeking to invalidate a nominating petition, the Fourth Department determined the respondent (a candidate for Common Council Member in Utica) did not provide a false address when she witnessed signatures on her nominating petition. Respondent was in the process of moving to the address used on the petition. Although she had spent time at the new address, the certificate of occupancy for the property had not yet been issued and she, therefore, could not yet formally reside there. The Fourth Department explained the law relevant to the use of an address where one intends to reside:

We explained in Matter of McManus v Relin (286 AD2d 855, lv denied 96 NY2d 718) that where, as here, “[t]he witness was in the process of moving from one apartment to another during the period in which signatures were being obtained and he provided his new address as a current address on . . . designating petitions signed before he actually moved,” the witness complied with Election Law § 6-132 (2). Although respondent had not yet moved to the address at the time she witnessed the signatures, the record establishes that the address was intended to be “that place where [she] maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home” (§ 1-104 [22]). “The determination of an individual’s residence is dependent upon an individual’s expressed intent and conduct …, and we conclude that the record establishes that respondent’s conduct reflects her intent that the address is her residence …, despite her inability to move in for reasons beyond her control. Thus, the witness statement using that address does not, under the circumstances of this case, constitute “a material false statement” (§ 6-132 [2]), and there is no indication of fraud … . Where an alleged impropriety “does not involve the substantive requirements of witness eligibility[,]’ [i.e., that respondent is a duly qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters qualified to sign the petition] and there is no implication of fraud, resort to strict construction should be avoided if it would lead to injustice in the electoral process or the public perception of it’ ” … . We therefore conclude, contrary to petitioner’s contention, that strict construction of Election Law § 6-132 (2) is not necessary with respect to respondent’s specification of the address on the witness statement. Matter of Vescera v Karp, 2015 NY Slip Op 06755, 4th Dept 9-8-15

 

,

“Nailing” of Petition on Next to Last Day for Service, and Mailing on the Last Day, Was Sufficient—Respondent, Who Initially Declined Designation as a Candidate, Could Not Subsequently Accept Designation as a Substitute Candidate

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the petition seeking invalidation of respondent’s designating petition was timely served by “nail and mail” because the nailing occurred on the day before the last possible date for service and the mailing occurred on the last possible day for service. The fact the petition could not have been “received” by mail by that date was not determinative. On the merits, the court determined respondent could not be the substitute candidate for a vacancy he himself had created by initially declining the designation. With respect to the service issue, the court wrote:

… [T]he petitioner must effectuate ” actual delivery of the instrument of notice not later than the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced’ ” … . In other words, the respondents must “receive delivery” of the order to show cause and the verified petition “within the [statute of limitations] period” … . That requirement operates irrespective of the court’s specific service directions under section 16-116 … .

Contrary to the view of our dissenting colleagues, we conclude that petitioner effectuated “actual delivery” of the commencement papers when they were affixed to respondent’s front door. It is well established that because “the [commencement] papers were timely affixed to the front door, the fact that the papers mailed were not received on [or before the statute of limitations date] was not a jurisdictional defect” … . Matter of Angletti v Morreale, 2015 NY Slip Op 06616, 4th Dept 8-19-15

 

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