You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL, THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” JURY INSTRUCTION IS ONLY APPROPRIATE WHERE A PHYSICIAN IS CONFRONTED WITH SEVERAL MEDICALLY ACCEPTABLE TREATMENTS AND CHOOSES ONE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT MISREAD AN X-RAY; GIVING THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice case, determined the judge should not have given the jury an “error in judgment” jury instruction. The complaint alleged defendant physician failed to notice an abnormality in a lung X-ray. The “error in judgment” instruction is only appropriate when a physician is confronted with several medically acceptable treatments and chooses one, not the case here:

“[A]n error [in] judgment charge is appropriate in a case where a doctor is confronted with several alternatives and, in determining appropriate treatment to be rendered, exercises [their] judgment by following one course of action in lieu of another” … . However, such a charge should be given “only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that [the] defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives” … . An error in judgment charge is not warranted where, as here, there was no evidence introduced at trial that the defendant physician “made a choice between or among medically acceptable alternatives” … , and the “plaintiffs’ [sole] theory of [the] defendant’s alleged malpractice ar[ose] from [the] defendant’s alleged lack of due care in assessing [the] plaintiff’s condition,” inasmuch as “the [sole] issue before the jury was [then] whether [the] defendant’s failure to diagnose [the] plaintiff’s [condition] constituted a deviation from medically accepted standards of care” … . Inasmuch as the error in judgment charge here “create[d] a risk that [the] jury w[ould] find that, because [Sobieraj] exercised his . . . best judgment, there can be no liability despite a failure to adhere to generally accepted standards of care,” we conclude that the court’s error in giving the charge cannot be deemed harmless … , and plaintiffs are thus entitled to a new trial.  Burns v Sobieraj, 2026 NY Slip Op 02537, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice action, the “error in judgment” jury instruction is only appropriate where there evidence of more than one appropriate treatment and the physician chooses one. It was reversible error to give the instruction where it was alleged the defendant misread an X-ray.

 

, , , ,

MOTHER ASKED TO REPRESENT HERSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING AND THEN DEFAULTED; THE ISSUE IS APPEALABLE DESPITE THE DEFAULT; THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY UPON MOTHER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HERSELF REQUIRED REMITTAL AND A NEW HEARING ON THE PETITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court and ordering a new custody hearing, determined Family Court did not conduct an adequate inquiry before accepting mother’s waiver of the right to counsel. The issue was appealable despite mother’s default:

At the mother’s initial appearance, Family Court advised the mother that she had the right to counsel, and the mother indicated that she planned to represent herself. The court scheduled a hearing on the petitions and warned the parties that, if a party failed to appear, the court would dismiss that party’s petition and proceed without the party. The mother failed to appear at the hearing, and the court noted her default and proceeded on the father’s petition. The mother now appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed her petition and awarded the parties joint custody of the children. * * *

 The “request by a party to waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se . . . places in issue whether the court fulfilled its obligation to ensure a valid waiver” and may be reviewed by this Court on an appeal by the subsequently defaulting pro se party … .

“[A] court’s decision to permit a party who is entitled to counsel to proceed pro se must be supported by a showing on the record of a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of [the right to counsel]” … . “If a timely and unequivocal request [to proceed pro se] has been asserted, then the trial court is obligated to conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ to ensure that the [party’s] waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” … . Although “[a] ‘searching inquiry’ does not have to be made in a formulaic manner” … , “the record must demonstrate that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . Matter of Crespo v Wynn, 2026 NY Slip Op 02517, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: In a custody proceeding, before accepting a party’s request to represent herself, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to make sure the party understands the dangers and disadvantages. The issue is appealable despite a subsequent default.

 

,

THE RESPONDENT CORRECTION OFFICER PARTICIPATED IN A GANG ASSAULT ON AN INMATE WHICH RESULTED IN THE INMATE’S DEATH; THE CORRECTION OFFICER WAS ACQUITTED OF CRIMINAL CHARGES; THE NY STATE POLICE BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING SEEKING AN “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) WHICH PROHIBITS RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT GRANTED IT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have issued an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) which preclude the respondent correction officer from possessing firearms. The respondent was involved in a gang assault on an inmate which caused the inmates death. The respondent had been acquitted of the related criminal charges:

… [T]he burden was on petitioner [the New York State Police] under the circumstances here to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent posed “a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 [a] [2]; see CPLR 6343 [2]). Petitioner met that burden by establishing that respondent actively participated in the assault of a restrained incarcerated individual by grabbing the victim by the chest and holding him down while other officers kicked the victim in the abdomen and groin (see CPLR 6342 [2] [a]). Indeed, that conduct is particularly egregious in this case because “DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise ‘[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment’ in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary” ( … 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]), inasmuch as “[c]orrection officers are tasked with the formidable and critical responsibility of protecting the safety of inmates and coworkers while maintaining order in correctional facilities” (id. at 385). Respondent adduced no evidence to the contrary at the hearing. * * *

We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the application, grant the application insofar as it seeks the issuance of a final ERPO, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 6343 (3). Matter of New York State Police v Galliher, 2026 NY Slip Op 02510, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: The “Extreme Risk Protection Act” (CPLR 6343) provides a mechanism to prohibit the possession of firearms. Here a correction officer participated in a gang assault on an inmate which resulted in the inmate’s death. The correction officer was acquitted of criminal charges and could therefore possess firearms. The NY State Police brought this proceeding for a “final extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) prohibiting the correction officer from possessing firearms.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH OF HIS PERSON, HE WAS NOT, IN FACT, UNDER ARREST; THEREFORE THE KEY FOB AND THE FIREARM FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT AFFIRM ON ANY ALTERNATIVE BASIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, suppressing the firearm found in defendants vehicle, determined the search of defendant’s person, during the key fob for the vehicle was seized, was not a valid search incident to arrest. Although there may have existed probable cause to arrest defendant at the time of the search, the defendant had not yet, in fact, been arrested:

Even assuming, arguendo, that either the investigator or the searching officer could have arrested defendant prior to or contemporaneously with the search of his person, we note that “[a] search must be incident to an actual arrest, not just to probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not” … . A lawful search incident to arrest “requires proof that, at the time of the search, an arrest has already occurred or is about to occur” … . The search must be “substantially contemporaneous” to an actual arrest “so as to constitute one event” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that there was no actual arrest of defendant justifying the search, inasmuch as the only officer who was purported to have actually placed defendant under arrest prior to or contemporaneously with the search explicitly informed defendant that he was not under arrest at that time … . The court upheld the search as a lawful search incident to an arrest, and thus we are precluded from affirming on any alternative basis … . People v Moore, 2026 NY Slip Op 02508, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: If a search of defendant’s person is justified as a search incident to arrest, the defendant must, in fact, be arrested before the search.

Practice Point: Here the motion court upheld the search as a search incident to arrest; the appellate court cannot affirm on any alternative ground.

 

, ,

AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CONFESSING TO THE MURDER FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the statement against penal interest made by a witness in a post-trial CPL article 440 hearing should have been admitted at trial. The witness essentially confessed to the shooting for which defendant was convicted. At the time of the trial, the witness was unavailable because he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial judge excluded the statement against penal interest on the ground that circumstances independent of the statement itself did not support the statement’s truthfulness and reliability :

… [W]e conclude, based on the circumstances of the witness’s CPL article 440 testimony and the trial record, from which that testimony was absent, that “there is ‘a reasonable possibility that the [testimony] might be true’ ” … . Initially, the witness’s description of the third party shooting at the window from the backyard when the light went on is consistent with the female victim’s testimony that she was shot immediately after she turned on the light and the physical evidence that the shots were fired through the rear window. The witness testified that the third party picked up a .38 firearm, which is consistent with the projectiles recovered from the shooting, from a nearby location just prior to the shooting. The witness’s description of running down the driveway with the third party immediately following the shots, across the street, and then over a backyard fence coincides with a female neighbor’s description in her trial testimony of two men jumping over her back fence. The testimony of a law enforcement witness also corroborated the witness’s account of the two prior robberies described by the witness during his CPL article 440 testimony. Further, there is no evidence that the witness had a familial or close relationship with defendant or other “obvious motive for [the witness] to falsely implicate himself” … .

In light of the more lenient standard applied to exculpatory statements, we conclude that the initial threshold of reliability is met, i.e., that there is a “reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 01881, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for admission of a statement against penal interest.

 

, ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the hospital’s motion to strike allegations of lack of informed consent should have been granted. That cause of action was not identified in the complaint. Therefore plaintiffs could not use their bill of particulars to assert it:

We agree with the Hospital defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking, in effect, to strike the allegations of lack of informed consent from plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars to the Hospital defendants, and we modify the order accordingly. “[A] bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized . . . A bill of particulars may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . For those purposes, “[l]ack of informed consent is a distinct theory of medical malpractice liability rooted in a specific professional duty to reasonably inform and obtain consent from the patient,” and claims for traditional medical malpractice and lack of informed consent ” ‘comprise[ ] different elements’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he complaint is based solely on [traditional] medical malpractice and does not contain a separate cause of action for lack of informed consent” … and that a review of the allegations in the complaint does not support the conclusion that the distinct theory of lack of informed consent was ” ‘sufficiently pleaded to avoid surprise and prejudice to [the Hospital] defendants’ ” … . Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ complaint does not presently plead a cause of action for lack of informed consent, the allegations in plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars relating to lack of informed consent must be stricken … . Heather J. v Rochester Regional Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 01880, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Here the complaint did not allege a cause of action for lack of informed consent. Therefore references to lack of informed consent in the bill of particulars can be stricken.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS 33 YEARS OLD AND THE JURY OBSERVED HIM, THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVE HE WAS OVER 18 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIMES REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS; THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of predatory sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual act first degree, determined that, although defendant was in fact 33 years old, the People failed to prove that he was over 18 at the time of the crimes. The errors was not preserved. The appellate court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to consider the issue:

Here, two counts in the indictment include an age element that required the People to establish that defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the crimes in June 2020 … . Defendant was in fact 33 years old in June 2020, and the jury naturally had the opportunity to observe his appearance during the trial in 2021, but that opportunity “does not, by itself, satisfy the People’s obligation to prove defendant’s age” … , and there was no evidence at trial bearing on his age … . We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of predatory sexual assault against a child under count 1 of the indictment and criminal sexual act in the first degree under count 5 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: If being over 18 at the time of the crime is an element of the offense, the People must prove that element. Here the defendant was 33, but the failure to prove he was over 18 was reversible error. This error will be considered by an appellate court even where it has not been preserved for appeal.​

 

,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT TO EXERCISE THEIR SHARED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS UNILATERALLY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have allowed the defendant and the codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges to jurors unilaterally:

… County Court erred in permitting the codefendant to unilaterally exercise peremptory challenges. … The court’s process of allowing defendant and codefendant to each unilaterally exercise their shared peremptory challenges was in violation of CPL 270.25 former (3) and resulted in defendant and codefendant exhausting their shared peremptory challenges before all jurors were selected … . A court’s mistaken denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge “under New York law mandates automatic reversal” … . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01874, Fourth Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: The court should not have allowed defendant and codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges unilaterally.​

 

,

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department. suppressing evidence seized upon defendant’s arrest and dismissing the indictment. over a two-justice dissent, determined that the police did not have particularized information which justified approaching defendant’s car which was parked near an apartment complex. There was a “trespass affidavit” by an apartment property manager on file with the police department which requested that any person who was not a tenant be arrested for trespass. The police approached defendant, who, it turned out, was a tenant. But based on an officer’s observation of a bag containing a tan substance inside the car, the officers ordered defendant out the car, searched the defendant’s person and car, and seized cocaine and a handgun:

… [T]he officer’s testimony that the apartment complex was in a high-crime area did not justify approaching defendant. The trespass affidavit failed to afford the officers any more particularized reason for approaching defendant. Therein, although the property manager for the apartment complex stated generally that there “was reason to believe that persons are congregating on the . . . property . . . [who] do not reside at said property,” there was no allegation in the trespass affidavit that the property was, for example, “plagued by illegal drug trade” or gang violence … . Indeed, the property manager did not specify any prior or ongoing incidents of criminal activity on the premises, but instead expressed a general belief that persons might be “congregating on the property,” which is a multi-building residential apartment complex, “without [the property manager’s] permission.” The property manager nonetheless also acknowledged in the trespass affidavit that non-residents were often permissibly on the property, such as guests of tenants. Thus, defendant was not “parked at an establishment around which criminal activity was known to occur” … . Further, the officers observed defendant momentary idling in a vehicle in a publicly accessible parking lot on a summer evening outside a residential apartment complex … , not “in a private space restricted by signage and a lock” … . Thus, nothing in the officers’ observation of defendant’s conduct, even considered in light of the assertions in the trespass affidavit, “provided a particularized reason to request information” … . People v Robinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01693, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

Practice Point: Here the police did not have a “particularized reason” for approaching defendant’s parked car near an apartment complex. The facts that (1) the defendant was parked in a high crime area and (2) an apartment-complex property manager had filed a “trespass affidavit” with the police was not enough to allow the police to approach the defendant to request information.

 

, ,

THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN ORDER MAKING SPECIAL FINDINGS TO ALLOW A JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) TO AVOID DEPORTATION TO GUATEMALA (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the petition for an order making special findings to allow a juvenile to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) such that the child can remain in the US and avoid deportation to Guatemala:

The child simultaneously moved for the issuance of an order making special findings that, among other things, the child’s reunification with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect, abandonment, or abuse, and it would not be in his best interests to be returned to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and last habitual residence. Although Surrogate’s Court granted the guardianship petition, following a subsequent hearing, the Surrogate issued the order on appeal denying the child’s motion for an order making the requisite declaration and special findings on the basis that the child presented “no credible testimony . . . of abuse, abandonment or neglect or that reunification with one or both of his parents is not viable.” * * *

… [T]he evidence established that the child is under the age of 21, unmarried, and a resident alien physically present in the United States and, inasmuch as the Surrogate appointed the child’s brother as his guardian, the child has been legally committed to or placed under the custody of an individual appointed by a juvenile court located in the United States within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J) (i) … .

… [W]e conclude that reunification of the child with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect (see generally Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). The record demonstrates that the child’s parents did not provide the child with medical care, even after he sustained a serious injury … , encouraged the child to drop out of school and work on the family farm at the age of 15 … , failed to protect the child from gang violence in Guatemala … . … [I]t would not be in the best interests of the child to return to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and country of last habitual residence … . Matter of Juarez, 2026 NY Slip Op 01686, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

 

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