You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Party Who Properly Withdrew a Mistaken Bid on a Public Works Project Should Have Been Allowed to Rebid

The Fourth Department determined a party (Kandey) who withdrew a mistaken bid on a public works project should have been allowed to rebid:

The court properly concluded that a rational basis supported the County’s determination that Kandey made the showing required by General Municipal Law § 103 (11) (a) when it sought permission to withdraw its mistaken bid. The court erred, however, in concluding that the County failed to comply with General Municipal Law § 103 (11) (b) when it permitted Kandey to participate in the rebid. That section provides that the “sole remedy for a bid mistake in accordance with this section shall be withdrawal of that bid and the return of the bid bond or other security, if any, to the bidder.” That is precisely what the County did here when it permitted Kandey to withdraw the mistaken bid. The statute further provides that, after the mistaken bid is withdrawn, the County “may, in its discretion, award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder or rebid the contract,” and the County acted within the discretion extended to it under the statute when it elected to rebid the contract.

The statute is silent on the question whether a contractor that was permitted to withdraw its bid may participate in the rebid. We agree with Kandey and the County that, had the Legislature intended to forbid a contractor in Kandey’s position from participating in the rebid, it would have done so explicitly. Further, “[a] court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit” … . Thus, we do not interpret the statute to include an implicit prohibition against Kandey’s participation in the rebid following the withdrawal of its mistaken bid. Matter of Concrete Applied Tech. Corp. v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 06087, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

,

Motion to Vacate Conviction Should Not Have Been Granted—Hearsay Statement Exonerating Defendant Did Not Meet the Criteria for a Statement Against Penal Interest and Should Not Have Been Admitted—The Underlying Evidence Was Not Newly Discovered Because Defendant Was Aware of It at the Time of Trial–Defendant Did Not Provide the Evidence at Trial Because He Feared Retaliation by Gang Members

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been granted.  The hearsay statement made by Jackson which exonerated defendant did not meet the criteria for a statement against penal interest and should not have been admitted in evidence.  The evidence involved was not newly discovered.  Defendant did not provide the evidence at trial out of fear of retaliation by gang members:

… [T]he court erred in admitting Jackson’s statement in evidence at the hearing, and, in any event, the statement would not be admissible at trial. This is vital because ” [i]mplicit in th[e] ground for vacating a judgment of conviction is that the newly discovered evidence be admissible’ ” … . Here, the court admitted the statement at the hearing as a declaration against penal interest, but it is well settled that “[f]or a statement against penal interest to be admissible the interest compromised must be such as to all but rule out’ motive to falsify, [and] the declarant must be conscious of the consequences of his statement at the time it is made . . . Those assurances of probative value, which might in a proper case substitute for cross-examination, were not present in this case” … . Although a less stringent standard applies where, as here, the declaration is offered by defendant to exonerate himself rather than by the People, to inculpate him… , none of the requirements was met here. To the contrary, the statement of the gang member was provided only after he was assured that he would not be prosecuted for any information that he provided, thus removing any indicia of reliability regarding that information… . …

Even assuming, arguendo, that Jackson’s statement was properly admitted at the hearing, and further assuming, arguendo, that the information he provided is material, noncumulative, and does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence, we conclude that the information was known to defendant at the time of the trial … . We cannot agree with the court that it was in effect “newly discovered” based on defendant’s fear of physical harm to himself and his family. “A defendant who chooses to withhold evidence should not be given a new trial on the basis of the evidence thus withheld’ ” … . Therefore, the evidence does not satisfy the requirement that it was “discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial” … . People v Backus, 2015 NY Slip Op 05330, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

, ,

Court Properly Ordered Further Deposition of County Employee and the Deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works Based Upon Plaintiff’s Showing the Witness Previously Provided Did Not Have Sufficient Knowledge

The Fourth Department noted that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the further deposition of a county employee and the deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works concerning the maintenance of a section of the road where plaintiff’s-decedent’s car left the road and struck a pole.  The employee’s prior testimony was incomplete because he could not recall relevant information. And, although the county can determine who should be deposed on its behalf, the court can order the deposition of a specific witness where the plaintiff shows the witness previously produced did not have sufficient knowledge:

“A trial court has broad discretion in supervising the discovery process, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion” … . We note with respect to the employee that he admitted at his initial deposition that he could not recall specific details relevant to plaintiffs’ theory of the County’s liability without reviewing the documents that subsequently were produced by the County. We thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the further deposition of the employee concerning those documents.

We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the County to produce the Commissioner for a deposition. “Although a municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for a deposition, a plaintiff may demand production of additional witnesses when (1) the officers or employees already deposed had insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the person sought for deposition possesses information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” … . Here, the record establishes that the two employees previously produced by the County have at most a general understanding of the reconstruction project contemplated by the County with respect to the section of road where the accident occurred and the reasons that the reconstruction project was abandoned, while the Commissioner has peculiar and specific knowledge about that project and the decision-making process pursuant to which it was abandoned. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that the employees previously produced by the County “did not possess sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts or [were] otherwise inadequate” … . Black v Athale, 2015 NY Slip Op 05355, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Insufficient Break Between “Unwarned” Statement and Statement Made Subsequently After the Miranda Warnings Were Given—Entire Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Fourth Department determined there was an insufficient break (10 minutes) between an “unwarned” inculpatory statement made by the defendant and a subsequent statement made after the Miranda warnings were given.  The entire statement should have been suppressed:

“When, as part of a continuous chain of events, a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, any statements made in response as well as any additional statements made after the warnings are administered and questioning resumes must be suppressed” … . Where, however, “there is such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning,” his or her statements in response to renewed questioning after he or she has received Miranda warnings and waived his or her constitutional rights may be admitted … . Here, the initial questioning by the second officer, although brief, produced an inculpatory statement directly related to the instant crime… , and the second interrogation, which produced another inculpatory statement, occurred less than 10 minutes later and in the same location … . Moreover, contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not establish that “a reasonable suspect in defendant’s position would have perceived a marked change in the tenor of his engagement with [the] police” … . We thus conclude that “it cannot be said that there was such a definite, pronounced break’ in the interrogation that defendant was returned to the position of one who was not under the influence of the initial improper questioning” … . People v Walker, 2015 NY Slip Op 05313, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Ordinance Imposing a Duty Upon Abutting Property Owners to Keep Sidewalks in Good Repair Raised a Question of Fact whether a Defect Caused by a Tree Root Should Have Been Repaired by the Defendant—The Defect Was Not So Significant As to Allow a Determination of Defendant’s Liability as a Matter of Law

The Fourth Department determined the existence of an ordinance imposing upon abutting property owners the duty to maintain the sidewalk created a question of fact whether defendant breached that duty. Apparently the defect was caused by a root from a tree on village property which defendant alleged he had no authority to disturb. The ordinance, however did not include any exceptions to the duty to repair.  The defect was not of such significance that summary judgment on liability as a matter of law was warranted:

… “[I]t is well established that, as an abutting landowner, [defendant] is not liable for injuries sustained as the result of a defect in the sidewalk unless[, inter alia,] . . . there is a local ordinance charging [defendant] with the duty to maintain and repair the sidewalk and imposing liability for injuries resulting from [defendant’s] failure to do so” … . Here, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted relevant portions of the General Code of the Village of Hamburg (Village), which charges landowners such as defendant with the duty to “repair, keep safe and maintain any sidewalk abutting [the landowner’s] premises,” and imposes liability on the landowner “for any injury or damage by reason of omission or failure to repair, keep safe, and maintain such sidewalk” (Village of Hamburg General Code § 203-26 [B]; see § 203-28 [A] [2]).

We conclude that, by submitting that local ordinance, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant breached the duty imposed on it to maintain the sidewalk abutting its property. Although defendant contends that the alleged defect in the sidewalk was created by a tree root that it had no authority to disturb because it originated from a tree on property owned and maintained by the Village, we note that the local ordinance contains no exceptions to the duty imposed on abutting landowners to maintain the sidewalk, even if the allegedly dangerous condition was created by a root extending from Village property. In any event, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant could not have repaired the alleged defect in the sidewalk without cutting the tree root that purportedly created it … .

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in granting that part of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence against defendant, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “Generally, a sidewalk defect presents an issue of fact for a jury . . . , unless . . . the defect is so trivial as to warrant disposition [in defendant’s favor] on summary judgment” … . Here, we cannot conclude that the alleged defect, as depicted in photographs included in the record, is of such significance that defendant may be held liable as a matter of law … . Shatzel v 152 Buffalo St., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 05333, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Pilot Assumed the Risk of a Take-Off from a Wet, Grass Field

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff-pilot’s complaint should have been dismissed because the pilot, injured attempting to take off from a grass field, assumed the risk associated with a take-off from a wet field.  The airport is a designated venue for the recreational activity of private aviation.  Therefore the recreational use of the airport was a qualifying activity under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. The pilot was aware of the wet conditions prior to his attempt to take off:

We agree with defendant that its airport is a designated venue for the recreational activity of private aviation and that plaintiff’s use thereof was in furtherance of his pursuit of that activity … . We thus conclude, as defendant contends, that plaintiff’s recreational use of defendant’s airport was a qualifying activity under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk … . Primary assumption of the risk applies when a consenting participant in a qualified activity “is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” …  . “[A]wareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . The primary assumption of the risk doctrine also encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions… . “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of [the] risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … .

Here, the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff, an experienced pilot, was well aware of the risk inherent in taking off from a soft, wet grass runway with the type of landing gear with which his aircraft was equipped. Plaintiff’s awareness of the risk was amply established by his admitted preflight concern about the condition of the grass runway, and by his personal inspection thereof generated in part by his encounter with wet and muddy conditions while towing his aircraft to the runway by motor vehicle. Bouck v Skaneateles Aerodrome, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05300, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Failure to Strictly Comply With Notice Requirement in the Civil Service Law Rendered the Involuntary Leave Imposed Upon the Petitioner-Firefighter a Nullity—Petitioner Entitled to Back Pay for Leave Period—Petitioner Properly Deemed Unfit for Active Duty Due to His Inability to Manage Diabetic Symptoms

The Fourth Department determined a firefighter was properly deemed unfit for active duty as a firefighter because of his inability to manage diabetic symptoms. During the course of the decision, the Fourth Department held that the city’s failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements of the Civil Service Law rendered the involuntary leave imposed on petitioner a nullity (entitling him to back pay for the leave period):

We conclude that the procedural protections contained in Civil Service Law § 72 (1) apply to proceedings brought pursuant Civil Service Law § 72 (5) based on the language in subdivision (1) that the provisions of notice and hearing therein apply to employees “placed on leave of absence pursuant to this section” (emphasis added), “which includes Civil Service Law § 72 (5)” … . These procedures are necessary “to afford tenured civil servant employees . . . procedural protections prior to involuntary separation from service” … . “Because of the significant due process implications of the statute, strict compliance with its procedures is required” … . Here, it is undisputed that respondents did not strictly comply with the procedures pursuant to section 72 for placing petitioner on immediate involuntary leave inasmuch as it was not until April 2012 that petitioner was provided with “[w]ritten notice of the facts providing the basis for the judgment of the appointing authority that [petitioner was] not fit to perform the duties of” his position (§ 72 [1]). Although the parties had engaged in negotiations during the period before respondents provided petitioner with written notice, respondents concede that at no time did petitioner waive his rights under section 72 … . Additionally, petitioner did not receive the final notice of determination within 75 days from the receipt of his request for review (see § 72 [1]). The absence of strict compliance with these procedural requirements renders petitioner’s alleged leave a nullity prior to September 30, 2013, when Linnertz issued his final determination after reviewing the Hearing Officer’s decision … , and petitioner is entitled to back pay and the restoration of benefits from August 26, 2011 until September 30, 2013. Matter of Williams v Troiano, 2015 NY Slip Op 05318, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

, , ,

Town Board’s Terminating, Without Notice, Plaintiff’s Construction Project Violated Plaintiff’s Right to Substantive Due Process/Town Was Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity

The plaintiff had cleared the way for building on land which included wetlands by obtaining the necessary permits and waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) when, without notice, the town board passed a resolution rescinding a previously issued sewer tap-in waiver and terminating the construction project. Among other theories, plaintiff sued under 42 USC 1983 (deprivation of property without due process of law) and won. On appeal the due process violation verdict was upheld. The Fourth Department explained the criteria for the due process cause of action and noted that the defendant town was not entitled to qualified immunity because the town board’s actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights:

… [W]e note that the Court of Appeals has set forth a two-part test for substantive due process violations: “[f]irst, [a plaintiff] must establish a cognizable property interest, meaning a vested property interest, or more than a mere expectation or hope to retain the permit and continue their improvements; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to continue construction’ . . . Second, [a plaintiff] must show that the governmental action was wholly without legal justification” … . Under the first prong, “a legitimate claim of entitlement to a permit can exist only where there is either a certainty or a very strong likelihood’ that an application for approval would have been granted” … . “Where an issuing authority has discretion in approving or denying a permit, a clear entitlement can exist only when that discretion is so narrowly circumscribed that approval of a proper application is virtually assured’ “… . * * *

We reject defendant’s contention that the state constitutional claims should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. ” A government official is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’ ” … . Defendant failed to establish that it was objectively reasonable for the Town Board to believe that its conduct in withdrawing the sewer tap-in waiver request on … was appropriate … . Instead, the evidence established that the Town Board members acted without knowing the history of the project and acted knowing that only the Planning Board had to take action, i.e., to give site plan approval for the property. Despite the existence of plaintiff’s constitutionally protected property interest in the … tap-in waiver request, the Town Board acted … to withdraw that waiver request, which was a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As such, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Acquest Wehrle, LLC v Town of Amherst, 2015 NY Slip Op 05346, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

No Survivorship Language in Joint Bank Account Documents/Evidence the Joint Account Was Created as a Matter of Convenience/Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted Awarding Plaintiff Half the Funds in the Account Upon the Death of the Other Person Named on the Account

The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court erred in concluding a joint bank account was a joint tenancy with right of survivorship and granting the aspect of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking half the funds in the account upon the death of the other party named on the account. There was no survivorship language in the account documents, and there was evidence tending to rebut any statutory presumption of a joint tenancy (i.e., evidence the account was created as a matter of convenience):

Contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that the statutory presumption of joint tenancy set forth in Banking Law § 675 does not apply to the joint account inasmuch as “the account documents do not contain the necessary survivorship language” … .

We note in any event that the statutory presumption may be rebutted “by providing direct proof that no joint tenancy was intended or substantial circumstantial proof that the joint account[s] had been opened for convenience only” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the statutory presumption of joint tenancy applies to the joint accounts, we conclude that defendant submitted evidence tending to rebut the statutory presumption that is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether, “at the time the accounts were created, the accounts were opened as a matter of convenience” … . In particular, defendant submitted evidence establishing, inter alia, that decedent was the sole depositor of the joint accounts, and that plaintiff never withdrew funds from the joint accounts during decedent’s lifetime … . In addition, defendant submitted evidence establishing that decedent’s creation of a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship in the joint accounts “would represent a substantial deviation from [her] previously expressed testamentary plan” … , Harrington v Brunson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05309, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Parties’ Agreement to “Litigate” Their Entitlement to Interest on a judgment Did Not Constitute a Waiver of the Relevant Insurance Policy’s Arbitration Clause—The Arbitrability of the Claims Must Be Determined by the Arbitrator Not the Courts

The Fourth Department determined an agreement to litigate the parties’ entitlement to interest on a judgment did not constitute a waiver of the relevant insurance policy’s arbitration clause. The issue whether the parties’ claims are arbitrable, therefore, must be determined by the arbitrator, not the courts:

“Once the parties to a broad arbitration clause have made a valid choice of forum, as here, all questions with respect to the validity and effect of subsequent documents purporting to work a modification or termination of the substantive provisions of their original agreement are to be resolved by the arbitrator” … . This is not a situation in which the parties engaged in litigation to such an extent that they “manifested a preference clearly inconsistent with [a] later claim that the parties were obligated to settle their differences by arbitration’ ” … . Nor is this a situation in which the entire contract containing the arbitration provision has been cancelled or terminated, such that “the designation of the arbitration forum for the resolution of disputes is no longer binding upon the parties” … . We thus conclude that the determination of the arbitrability of the parties’ claims under the Policy should be made by an arbitrator. Town of Amherst v Granite State Ins. Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05352, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

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