The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erroneously ruled defendant did not have standing to contest a search. After that ruling the defendant pled guilty and has since completed his sentence. Because the suppression hearing should have been held, and because the defendant may not have pled guilty had suppression been granted, the matter was remitted for a suppression hearing. People v Kendrick, 2015 NY Slip Op 03979, 4th Dept 5-8-15
The Fourth Department determined the defendant impliedly consented to a search of his person after entering the Hall of Justice. Signs in the Hall of Justice warned that those who enter the building were subject to search. The defendant’s argument that consent extended to no more than a frisk was rejected. The court found the defendant consented to a full search of his person and the opening of a foil packet found on his person:
Here, defendant was warned before walking through the magnetometers that he could be subject not just to a pat frisk, but to a search. Given a reasonable person’s knowledge of the increased security measures in government buildings in the past decade and the notifications posted for entrants into the Hall of Justice, we conclude that a reasonable person would have understood that the impending search could involve more than a pat frisk if the initial magnetometer scans indicated the presence of metal on his or her person … . We therefore further conclude that the deputies’ search of defendant’s person did not exceed the scope of defendant’s implied consent.
Defendant’s contention that the opening of the foil package, once it was removed from his person, was a separate, improper search incident to an arrest is unpreserved for our review because defendant failed to raise that contention in his omnibus motion or before the suppression court … . In any event, that contention has no merit. As defendant correctly concedes, he was not under arrest when he was taken to the adjacent room. Moreover, inasmuch as defendant impliedly consented to a search of his person and belongings before entering the Hall of Justice, and did not revoke said consent before the deputies opened the foil package, we conclude that the deputies’ opening of the package to check if it contained a small weapon, such as a razor blade, was not improper … . People v White, 2015 NY Slip Op 03963, 4th Dept 5-8-15
The Fourth Department concluded that wrong information provided to the defendant about sentencing required vacation of the plea, in the absence of preservation by a motion to withdraw the plea. The defendant was wrongly told by the court and counsel that his sentences on the instant offense and an unrelated offense would necessarily run consecutively. Because there was no way to expect defendant to know the information was incorrect, the error need not be preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea. Because the plea was based upon complete confusion by all concerned, the plea was vacated:
We agree with defendant, however, that his plea should be vacated on the ground that it was not voluntarily, knowingly or intelligently entered based on the mistaken understanding of the legally required sentence shared by County Court and counsel. Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review …, we conclude that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies … . Here, it is clear from the face of the record that the prosecutor incorrectly stated that the sentence on the instant conviction must run consecutively to the sentence imposed on an unrelated conviction, when in fact that was not the case because the instant offense occurred prior to the unrelated conviction (see generally Penal Law § 70.25). It is equally clear that this error was not corrected by defense counsel or the trial court. Thus, preservation was not required “[i]nasmuch as defendant—due to the inaccurate advice of his counsel and the trial court—did not know during the plea . . . proceedings” that consecutive sentences were not required by law … . ” [D]efendant [could] hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he ha[d] no knowledge’ ” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable, we would nevertheless exercise our power to address defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
On the merits, we conclude that defendant’s plea should be vacated because “[i]t is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea,” based on the prosecutor’s erroneous statement that [*2]consecutive sentences were required and the failure of the court or defense counsel to correct that error. We “cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned” … . People v Brooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 03969, 4th Dept 5-8-15
The Fourth Department noted that the fact that an Industrial Code provision was violated does not establish negligence sufficient to support partial summary judgment: “Despite our conclusion that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c), we reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A violation of an Industrial Code provision ‘does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’…”. Whether there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c) turned on whether plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew.” If he was not, then his proximity to the equipment which injured him violated the provision. If he was a member of an “excavation crew,” the provision was not violated. The majority determined plaintiff was not a member of a “crew” because he was the only person there. The two dissenting judges disagreed and argued plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew” within the meaning of the provision. Vanderwall v 1255 Portland Ave. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03959, 4th Dept 5-8-15
The Fourth Department determined the 23-week-old child delivered by cesarean section was a “person” within the meaning of the manslaughter statute. The child’s mother was severely injured in a head-on collision with defendant’s vehicle and the child was delivered to save the mother’s life. The child was taken off life-support because of the high risk of cognitive and neurological deficits and died 21/2 hours later. The court, in essence, determined the child was a “person” because she was born alive.
The Penal Law provides that a defendant “is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when . . . [he or she] recklessly causes the death of another person” (§ 125.15 [1]). Furthermore, ” [p]erson,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive” (§ 125.05 [1]), and the Penal Law defines homicide as “conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks” (§ 125.00).
Defendant first contends that the evidence is not legally sufficient because, pursuant to the above statutory scheme, a child who is less than 24 weeks of gestational age is not a person. That contention is without merit. Penal Law § 125.00 uses the disjunctive “or” in defining who may be the victim of a homicide, and it is a well-settled rule of statutory interpretation that “[u]se of the conjunction or’ in a statute usually indicates that the language is to be construed in an alternative sense”… . Therefore, a victim who is born alive may be a person for the purposes of a homicide pursuant to section 125.00, regardless of whether he or she is less than 24 weeks of gestational age. People v Hardy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03961, 4th Dept 5-8-15
The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether it was foreseeable that children would swing on an unsecured gate to a cemetery (open to the public). The seven-year-old plaintiff was injured while “riding the gate.” Although there is nothing inherently dangerous about an unsecured gate, knowledge that children played in the cemetery raised a question of fact whether injury to a child was foreseeable:
“It is beyond dispute that landowners . . . have a duty to maintain their properties in [a] reasonably safe condition” … . “Consistent with that duty, the degree of care to be exercised must take into account the known propensity’ of children to roam and climb and play’ ” … . Indeed, “New York State courts have recognized the special propensities of children and the prevailing social policy of protecting them from harm’ . . . and have not deprived them of a right to compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of third parties . . . solely on account of their misuse of an instrument found on the defendant’s premises” … . “What accidents are reasonably foreseeable, and what preventive measures should reasonably be taken, are ordinarily questions of fact” … .
* * * “[A]t least once it is known that children commonly play around . . . an artificial structure [such as the gate], their well-known propensities . . . to climb about and play’ . . . create a duty of care on the part of a landowner to prevent foreseeable risks of harm that might arise out of those activities” … .
Given that, “as a matter of law, [ riding’ a gate] is not such an extraordinary’ form of play as to break the causal connection between the dangerous condition . . . and plaintiff’s injuries,” we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact whether “[i]t was a natural and foreseeable consequence of defendant’s failure to effectively secure the [gate] against access that young children would play [on it],” thereby resulting in injury … . Charles v Village of Mohawk, 2015 NY Slip Op 03975, 4th Dept 5-8-15
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
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
The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly issued a preliminary injunction. All the criteria—irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balancing of the equities—were met. The case involved the Workers’ Compensation Board’s levying of deficit assessments against petitioners pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law section 50. Matter of Riccelli Enters Inc v State of NY Workers’ Compensation Bd, 2014 NY Slip Op 03067, 4th Dept 5-2-14
The Fourth Department, over a substantial dissent, determined that the evidence of plaintiff’s headaches did not raise a question of fact about whether the headaches constituted “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d):
…[W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in concluding that plaintiff raised an issue of fact based upon her complaints of headaches. Although plaintiff submitted excerpts from her deposition in which she testified that “basically every day I would have some type of headache,” it is well settled that “subjective complaints of pain or headaches are insufficient to establish serious injury’ ” … . Here, the record contains no objective basis for plaintiff’s headache complaints … . Moreover, plaintiff “offered no proof that [her] headaches in any way incapacitated [her] or interfered with [her] ability to work or engage in activities at home” … . Downie v McDonough, 2014 NY Slip Op 03048, 4th Dept 5-2-14
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy