You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment properly survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: “

Although liability for false arrest and false imprisonment generally will not be imposed where a civilian complainant merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities rather than taking ” an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ . . . with the intent that [the] plaintiff be confined” …, we conclude that the complaint and plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion here sufficiently allege that defendant’s employees made false statements to investigators with the intent of having plaintiff be arrested and confined … . Harrison v Samaritan Med. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 03971, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

1/2 to 3/4 Inch Defect in Sidewalk Not Trivial As a Matter of Law

In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the 1/2 to 3/4 defect in the sidewalk (which extended across two adjoining slabs) where plaintiff tripped and fell was trivial, the Fourth Department explained the relevant criteria: “[W]hether a dangerous or defective exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . “[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . Although “in some instances . . . the trivial nature of the defect may loom larger than another element[,] . . . [a] mechanistic disposition of a case based exclusively on the dimension of the [pavement] defect” is inappropriate … . Thus, a determination whether a particular defect is actionable requires examination of “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … . Greco v City of Buffalo, 2015 NY Slip Op 03966, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Attorney-in-Fact Used His Power to Create a Gift (by Deed) to Himself and/or Third Parties—Deed Declared Null and Void

The Fourth Department determined the deed purporting to transfer a life estate to the attorney-in-fact was null and void. Essentially, the attorney-in-fact used his power to make a gift to himself and/or third parties, which created an unrebutted presumption of impropriety:

It is well settled that “[a] power of attorney . . . is clearly given with the intent that the attorney-in-fact will utilize that power for the benefit of the principal” … . “The relationship of an attorney-in-fact to his principal is that of agent and principal . . . and, thus, the attorney-in-fact must act in the utmost good faith and undivided loyalty toward the principal, and must act in accordance with the highest principles of morality, fidelity, loyalty and fair dealing’ . . . Consistent with this duty, an agent may not make a gift to himself or a third party of the money or property which is the subject of the agency relationship” … . “In the event such a gift is made, there is created a presumption of impropriety [that can] be rebutted [only] with a clear showing that the principal intended to make the gift” …, or that the gift was in the principal’s best interest … . Borders v Borders, 2015 NY Slip Op 04022, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Injury While Trying to Pick Up a Fallen 3000 Pound Roll of Paper Was a Foreseeable Consequence of an Alleged Equipment Defect Which Caused the Roll to Fall

The Fourth Department determined the summary judgment motion of the defendants—manufacturers and modifiers of a pallet truck—was properly denied.  The complaint alleged the pallet truck and the roll cradle with which the pallet truck was modified were defective, causing a 3000 pound roll of paper to fall off the truck.  Plaintiff was severely injured while trying to lift the fallen roll.  The defendants’ arguments that any defects in the pallet truck and roll cradle were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the attempt to pick up the fallen roll was the superseding cause of the injuries, were rejected. The court determined the cause of the injury was within the class of foreseeable hazards associated with a fallen roll and the risk of the intervening act (lifting the fallen roll) was the same risk that renders the actor negligent:

“As a general rule, the question of proximate cause is to be decided by the finder of fact, aided by appropriate instructions” … . Where the cause of an accident is “within the class of foreseeable hazards that [a] duty exists to prevent, the [defendant] may be held liable, even though the harm may have been brought about in an unexpected way” … . We conclude that the hazard that caused plaintiff’s injury, i.e., the movement of the roll while it was being placed back in an upright position, was “within the class of foreseeable hazards” associated with a roll falling off the allegedly defective pallet truck …, and thus a jury “could rationally [find] that . . . there was a causal connection between [defendants’ alleged] negligence and plaintiff’s injuries” … . We thus reject the contention of defendants that the falling roll merely “furnished the occasion” for plaintiff’s accident.

We also reject the contention of defendants that the actions of plaintiff and his coworkers in attempting to upright the roll were a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injuries. “An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” … . As noted above, the risk of the roll falling while being uprighted is the same risk underlying plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence, and we conclude that the actions of plaintiff and his coworkers were not “of such an extraordinary nature” as to relieve defendants of liability … . Ard v Thompson & Johnson Equip. Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03985, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable

The Fourth Department determined the records generated by attorneys which related to an insurer’s decision whether to accept or reject a claim were discoverable as records made in the regular course of business—even if the records relate in part to potential litigation.  Records generated by attorneys after the claim was denied are privileged and not discoverable:

“It is well settled that [t]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding which of the two indicated actions to pursue are made in the regular course of its business’ ” … . “Reports prepared by . . . attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are thus not privileged and are discoverable . . . , even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose’ reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured” … . Here, the documents submitted to the court for in camera review constitute multi-purpose reports motivated in part by the potential for litigation with plaintiff, but also prepared in the regular course of defendant’s business in deciding whether to pay or reject plaintiff’s claim, and thus plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of those documents.  Lalka v Aca Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 03995, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

Whether the Insurer Is Obligated to Indemnify the Driver Turns on Whether the Driver Acted Intentionally When His Vehicle Struck the Rear of Decedent’s Vehicle—-There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Incident Was an Accident or the Result of Intentional Conduct

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the striking of decedent’s car from behind was intentional or accidental.  If the rear driver acted intentionally, his insurer had no duty to indemnify the rear driver. The court explained the terms “accidental” and “intentional” in this context:

“In deciding whether a loss is the result of an accident, it must be determined, from the point of view of the insured, whether the loss was unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . We must look to the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action, but may also consider extrinsic facts … .

Insurable ” [a]ccidental results can flow from intentional acts’ ” … . On the other hand, “when the damages alleged in the [underlying] complaint are the intended result which flows directly and immediately from [the insured’s] intentional act, . . . there is no accident, and therefore, no coverage” … . “[M]ore than a causal connection between the intentional act and the resultant harm is required to prove that the harm was intended” … . The exclusion for an intentional injury, however, will apply where the injuries are ” inherent in the nature’ of the wrongful act”… . Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Ellis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04011, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

County Department of Human Services Was Entitled to a Hearing On Whether It Should Be Held In Contempt for Failing to Place a Person In Need of Supervision In Foster Care

The Fourth Department determined the County Department of Human Services should not have been held in contempt without a hearing for failing to return the respondent (a person in need of supervision) to foster care.  The Department had raised a defense, i.e., the Department had tried but was unable to place the respondent, and was therefore entitled to a hearing. Matter of Andrew B., 2015 NY Slip Op 03999, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague

The defendant was stopped by the police for a violation of a city ordinance prohibiting “unnecessary noise” (a loud car stereo).  The defendant argued that the stop, which resulted in drug charges, was not justified by probable cause because the “unnecessary noise” ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague.” The Fourth Department determined the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it is tailored to the context of what can be heard more than 50 feet from a vehicle on a public highway and is sufficiently definite to put defendant on notice his conduct was forbidden:

Municipal ordinances “enjoy an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality’ ” …, and such legislative enactments “are to be construed so as to avoid constitutional issues if such a construction is fairly possible”… . “The void-for-vagueness doctrine embodies a rough idea of fairness’ ” …, and “an impermissibly vague ordinance is a violation of the due process of law” … . In addressing such a challenge, courts first “must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his [or her] contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute” … . “Second, the court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement”

* * * … [T]he City Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because the section under which defendant was convicted was tailored to a specific context—the creation of “unnecessary noise” beyond 50 feet of a motor vehicle on a public highway (City Ordinance § 40-16 [b]). In our view, “[w]hat is usual noise in the operation of a car [radio or other sound production device] has become common knowledge . . . and any ordinary motorist should have no difficulty in ascertaining” whether the noise in question violates the applicable standard … . Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the ordinance in question was “sufficiently definite” to put defendant on notice that his conduct was forbidden, and that it provided the police “with clear standards for enforcement” … . People v Stephens, 2015 NY Slip Op 03991, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended by Stipulation

The Fourth Department determined the 120-day time limit for making summary judgment motions (after the filing of a note of issue) was properly extended by stipulation.  The dissent felt that such a stipulation was invalid because it violated public policy: “While we agree with our dissenting colleague that the court was not required to accept the express stipulation of the parties to extend the 120-day deadline in CPLR 3212, we note that the court in fact did so in advance of the motion … . Moreover, unlike our dissenting colleague, we do not view the timing requirements applicable to motions for summary judgment as a matter of public policy that may not be affirmatively waived by a party …”. Bennett v St. John’s Home & St. John’s Health Care Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03952, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

Person Injured After Being Thrown from a Motorcycle Is an “Occupant” of the Motorcycle Within the Meaning of the Insurance Law and Is Therefore Not Eligible for First-Party No-Fault Benefits

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sconiers, determined a person injured after being thrown from a motorcycle was an “occupant” of the motorcycle within the meaning of the Insurance Law and therefore ineligible for first-party no-fault benefits:

Previously, motorcycle operators and passengers injured in motor vehicle accidents were generally entitled to first-party benefits under the no-fault law. Former section 672 (1) (a) of the Insurance Law provided that those entitled to first-party benefits under the no-fault scheme encompassed “persons, other than occupants of another motor vehicle.” That category included motorcyclists on a par with pedestrians … . The statute was amended in 1977 to exclude occupants of motorcycles from such benefits (see L 1977, ch 892, § 9), thereby terminating the treatment of motorcycle occupants “as pedestrians rather than motorists [who] enjoy the benefits of no-fault at no cost” … . The successor of the amended statute, Insurance Law § 5103 (a) (1), currently provides that, under a policy of insurance issued on an automobile, first-party benefits are available to “[p]ersons, other than occupants of another motor vehicle or a motorcycle” … . The exclusions in the Kemper and Farm and Family insurance policies of “any person while occupying a motorcycle” are consistent with Insurance Law § 5103 (a) (1) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). Boyson v Kwasowsky, 2015 NY Slip Op 03964, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

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