You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the Second Floor Was Not an Elevation-Related Risk within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1)/Nature of Labor Law 200 Action Explained

The Fourth Department determined maneuvering a heavy door across a two-foot gap between the scissors lift on which plaintiff was standing and the door opening on the second floor was not an elevation-related risk within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).   Plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action, however, survived defendant’s summary judgment motion:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . The duty does not, however, “extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform’ ” … . Here, plaintiff’s accident resulted from the manner in which the work was performed, and it is undisputed that defendant had the authority to supervise and control the methods and manner of plaintiff’s work, and that it in fact exercised such supervisory control … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the risk of injury owing to moving a heavy door across a two-foot gap while at an elevated height with the assistance of a single worker was “inherent in plaintiff’s work” … . We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in denying that part of its motion and granting that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … . Rather, the statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . Here, plaintiff injured his back while maneuvering a heavy door across a lateral gap; the door did not fall or descend even a de minimis distance owing to the application of the force of gravity upon it … . Although “the injured plaintiff’s back injury was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon” the door he was lifting, “it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . We thus conclude that the hazard at issue here, i.e., lifting or carrying a heavy object across a lateral gap, even while positioned at a height, is a “routine workplace risk[]” of a construction site and not a “pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Carr v McHugh Painting Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02584, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Despite Broad General Language, the Release Applied Solely to the Property-Damage Claim Referenced In It and Not to Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed a complaint based upon a release signed by the plaintiff. The release related only to the particular property damage claims referenced in the document—despite broad prefatory language:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. She had previously commenced an action in Rochester City Court seeking $4,741.04 for property damage to her vehicle. In consideration of that sum, plaintiff signed a release in favor of, inter alia, defendant Zacharey A. Taylor (defendant), releasing him from “all actions, causes of action . . . claims and demands whatsoever” that plaintiff “ever had” against defendant “from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE. And more particularly for any and all property damage claims as a result of [the subject] motor vehicle accident.”

We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint against him in the instant action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) based upon the release. “The meaning and scope of a release must be determined within the context of the controversy being settled” … , and “a release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of” … . “Moreover, it has long been the law that where a release contains a recital of a particular claim, obligation or controversy and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby” … . Here, viewing the release in the context of the controversy being settled and in light of the specific reference to plaintiff’s property damage claims, we conclude that the parties intended that plaintiff release only such property damage claims … . Corzatt v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 02621, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Failure to Read Defendant His Miranda Rights, After the Defendant Interrupted the Reading of the Rights by Telling the Officer He Knew His Rights, Required Suppression of the Statements

The Fourth Department determined that defendant was entitled to a new trial with respect to the charges related to unwarned statements he made to the police.  When an officer started to read the Miranda rights to the defendant he stopped the officer by saying he knew his rights.  The defendant thereafter made several statements in the absence of any Miranda warnings:

It is well settled that “[a]n individual taken into custody by law enforcement authorities for questioning must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights’ safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination” … . The Miranda warnings “are an absolute prerequisite to interrogation’ ” … . Here, the court concluded that defendant understood his rights based on the fact that he had been given Miranda warnings before he gave his August 16, 2010 statement [re: a different, unrelated offense]. A court, however, does not ” inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given’ ” … . Defendant’s statements made on November 17, 2010 must therefore be suppressed because the Miranda warnings were not given until after defendant was interrogated… . People v Jackson, 2015 NY Slip Op 02623, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Insufficient Evidence Defendant “Caused” the Victim’s Death within the Meaning of the Felony Murder Statute—The Victim, Who Was Assaulted by the Defendant, Died of a Heart Attack

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support defendant’s felony murder conviction.  Defendant assaulted the victim during a burglary/robbery.  The victim, who was obese and had heart disease, suffered a fatal heart attack. The Fourth Department held that the People did not present sufficient evidence the defendant caused the victim’s death within the meaning of the felony murder statute:

A person is guilty of felony murder when, during the commission or attempted commission of an enumerated felony, either the defendant or an accomplice “causes the death of a person other than one of the participants” (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). A person “causes the death” of another person “when the . . . culpable act is a sufficiently direct cause’ of the death so that the fatal result was reasonably foreseeable” … . Such a culpable act is a sufficiently direct cause of death when it is “an actual contributory cause of death, in the sense that [it] forged a link in the chain of causes which actually brought about the death’ ” … . “An obscure or a merely probable connection between an assault and death will, as in every case of alleged crime, require acquittal of the charge of any degree of homicide” … .

Here, we conclude that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonably foreseeable that defendant’s actions, i.e., unlawfully entering the victim’s apartment and assaulting him, would cause the victim’s death. As noted, the victim died of a heart attack, and the injuries inflicted upon him by defendant were not life threatening. Indeed, the most serious injury inflicted was a fractured jaw. Although the Chief Medical Examiner testified for the People at trial that defendant caused the victim’s death, she explained that her opinion in that regard was based on her assertion that, “but for” defendant’s actions, the victim would not have died of a heart attack. As the court properly instructed the jury, however, “more than but for’ causation [is] required” to establish felony murder … . Notably, the Chief Medical Examiner did not testify that defendant’s culpable act was a direct cause of the death or that the fatal result was reasonably foreseeable. We thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant committed felony murder, as charged in counts one and two of the indictment, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. People v Davis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02628, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

, , ,

Plaintiff’s Allegations of Injuries in the Bill of Particulars Were Not So Broad as to Constitute a Waiver of the Physician-Patient Privilege for Plaintiff’s Entire Medical History

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s allegations of injuries in the bill of particulars was not so broad as to place plaintiff’s entire medical history in controversy:

In bringing the action, plaintiff waived the physician/patient privilege only with respect to the physical and mental conditions affirmatively placed in controversy” … . Indeed, that waiver ” does not permit wholesale discovery of information regarding [plaintiff’s] physical and mental condition’ ” … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, the allegations in the bill of particulars that plaintiff sustained “serious and permanent injuries, including: toxic keratitis; bilateral corneal abrasions; severe bilateral photophobia; impaired vision; decrease in vision; need for corneal transplants; loss of enjoyment of life; disability; and pain and suffering” “do not constitute such broad allegations of injury’ that they place plaintiff’s entire medical history in controversy” … . The court properly conducted an in camera review to redact irrelevant information …, and properly limited disclosure to the “conditions affirmatively placed in controversy” … . Reading v Fabiano, 2015 NY Slip Op 02634, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Appeal Waiver Invalid/Court Erroneously Told Defendant His Request for a Hearing on the Persistent Violent Felony Offender Tolling Calculations Violated the Plea Agreement—Matter Remitted for a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and defendant was entitled to a hearing on the time-calculations associated with the “persistent violent felony offender” status.  The ten-year period between the current felony and the prior felony is tolled by any periods of incarceration.  Defendant objected to the tolling calculations made by County Court. County Court effectively coerced defendant to agree to its tolling calculations by erroneously telling defendant his request for a hearing violated the plea agreement:

…[T]he waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that defendant understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty … . We further agree with defendant that this case should be remitted for a hearing on the issue whether he is a persistent violent felony offender. A persistent violent felony offender is one who is convicted of a violent felony offense after having previously been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions (see § 70.08 [1] [a]). The sentence upon the predicate violent felony convictions “must have been imposed not more than ten years before commission of the felony of which the defendant presently stands convicted” (§ 70.04 [1] [b] [iv]). However, “[i]n calculating the ten year period . . . , any period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony shall be excluded and such ten year period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served under such incarceration” (§ 70.04 [1] [b] [v]).

Here, defendant admitted that he was convicted of two prior violent felonies, but objected to the tolling periods that were computed by County Court pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v) and requested a hearing. After some discussion with the court, defendant conceded that the court’s computations were correct, essentially waiving the necessity for a hearing. …[H]is waiver of the hearing was not effective because it was the product of impermissible coercion by the court. The court indicated that it could consider defendant’s request for a hearing to be a violation of the plea agreement, but that was not accurate. “While [the court] did advise defendant during the plea hearing that he was going to be sentenced as a [persistent violent] felony offender, it never specifically instructed him that admitting such [persistent violent] felony offender status was a condition of the plea agreement and that his failure to do so would result in a more severe sentence” … . People v Vanhooser, 2015 NY Slip Op 02640, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

, ,

Mall Security Guards Did Not Actively Participate in Arrest of Plaintiff But Rather Acted at the Behest of the Police—False Arrest, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the Mall Should Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined the causes of action against a mall for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution should have been dismissed.  The court determined the mall personnel (security guards) did not actively cause the plaintiff to be arrested, but rather were instructed to act by the police:

…[T]he causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment are synonymous …, and our analysis treats them as such. We agree with the Mall defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion concerning those causes of action. In order to establish liability therefor on the part of the Mall defendants, plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, that the Mall defendants ” took an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ “… . Here, however, the Mall defendants met their initial burden on their motion of establishing as a matter of law that their security guard did not take the requisite “active role” in arresting plaintiff. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the record establishes that the security guard handcuffed plaintiff only at the direction of a Town of Greece police officer (hereafter, police officer), who informed plaintiff that she was under arrest … .

…[T]he court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking dismissal of the cause of action for malicious prosecution. In order to hold the Mall defendants liable for that tort, plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, “the commencement . . . of a criminal proceeding by the [Mall] defendant[s] against” her … . To establish that element, plaintiff would have to prove that the Mall defendants “affirmatively induced the [police] officer to act,” for example, by “taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the [police] officer [was] not acting of his own volition” … . We conclude in this case, however, that the Mall defendants met their initial burden on their motion of establishing that they did not commence a criminal proceeding against plaintiff inasmuch as the security guard did not affirmatively induce the police officer to act to the point where the police officer was not acting of his own volition. Indeed, the record establishes that the police officer observed the altercation, and acted of his own volition in directing the security guard to handcuff plaintiff and in informing plaintiff that she was under arrest. Washington v Town of Greece, 2015 NY Slip Op 02661, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Expert Opinion-Evidence About the Reliability of Eyewitness Identification

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant should have been allowed to present expert evidence about the reliability of eyewitness identifications.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

“Because mistaken eyewitness identifications play a significant role in many wrongful convictions, and expert testimony on the subject of eyewitness recognition memory can educate a jury concerning the circumstances in which an eyewitness is more likely to make such mistakes, courts are encouraged . . . in appropriate cases’ to grant defendants’ motions to admit expert testimony on this subject” … , the Court of Appeals established a two-stage inquiry for considering a motion to admit expert testimony on eyewitness identification … . “The first stage is deciding whether the case turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime’ … . If the trial court finds itself with such a case, then it must proceed to the second stage, which involves the application of four factors. The court must decide whether the proposed testimony is (1) relevant to the witness’s identification of defendant, (2) based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, (3) proffered by a qualified expert and (4) on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror’ … . If, on the other hand, sufficient evidence corroborates an eyewitness’s identification of the defendant, then there is no obligation on the part of the trial court to proceed to the second stage of analysis, because testimony concerning eyewitness identifications is unnecessary” … .

Here, the People concede that this case hinges upon the accuracy of the eyewitness’s identification of defendant, and we agree with defendant that there was little or no corroborating evidence connecting him to the crime … . People v McCullough, 2015 NY Slip Op 02589, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Plaintiff, a Pedestrian, Was Injured When a Traffic Sign Struck by a Car Broke Off and Hit Her—County Owed Plaintiff a Duty to Properly Install the Sign—Question of Fact Raised Whether Improper Installation of a “Break Away” Sign Was a Proximate Cause of the Plaintiff’s Injuries

The Fourth Department determined the County had a duty to properly install traffic signs and that duty extended to plaintiff, a pedestrian severely injured when a traffic sign broke off and hit her after the sign post was struck by a car. The court further determined that a question of fact had been raised about whether any negligence in installing the sign was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries:

“The existence and scope of a duty of care is a question of law for the courts entailing the consideration of relevant policy factors” … . “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party,” i.e., a person who is not a party to the contract … . An exception applies where the contracting party has ” entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely’ ” … . Here, we conclude that the County’s duty to plaintiff arose from its comprehensive agreement with the City inasmuch as, pursuant to that agreement, the County has entirely displaced the City in fulfilling the City’s duty to be responsible for traffic signs … . Specifically, the County had a duty to properly reinstall the sign in October 1999, including using proper materials, installing the sign’s post at the appropriate depth in the ground on a proper base, and placing the sign at the required distance from the roadway. Moreover, that duty “extend[ed] to noncontracting individuals[, such as nearby pedestrians,] reasonably within the zone and contemplation of the intended [traffic engineering] services” encompassed by the County’s agreement with the City … .

…”[I]t is well settled that there may be more than one proximate cause of [an] accident” … . …[P]laintiff’s … expert raised an issue of fact … . Plaintiff’s expert opined in his opposing affidavit that the County improperly installed a breakaway signpost and that the accident would not have occurred but for that improper installation. Plaintiff’s expert also opined that the County’s negligence in installing the sign was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, he opined that, had the sign been properly placed, it would not have struck plaintiff because its placement one foot above the ground created a risk that the sign would become a high-flying projectile if hit, rather than bending or projecting closer to the ground. We conclude that the court properly denied the County’s motion because the submission of conflicting expert opinions “present[ed] issues of credibility to be determined by the trier of fact” … . Honer v McComb, 2015 NY Slip Op 02662, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

, ,

Town, Not the Town Board, Was the Proper Party/Town Could Not Use Article 78/Declaratory Judgment to Enforce a Contract/Town Entitled to Specific Performance of Contract

The Fourth Department, in the context of an action by the town for specific performance of a contract with a volunteer fire department, determined: (1) the town, not the town board, was the proper party to bring the action; (2) the hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action could not be brought by the town to enforce a contract; (3) the action should have been brought as one seeking specific performance; (4) the town was entitled to specific performance of the contract:

…[T]he Town Board lacks capacity to bring this proceeding/action.  As “artificial creatures of statute,” governmental entities such as the Town Board “have neither an inherent nor a common-law right to sue. Rather, their right to sue, if it exists at all, must be derived from the relevant enabling legislation or some other concrete statutory predicate” … . Here, Town Law § 65 (1) provides in relevant part that “[a]ny action or special proceeding for or against a town, or for its benefit, . . . shall be in the name of the town,” and that “[t]he town board of any town may authorize and direct any town officer or officers to institute, defend or appear, in any action or legal proceeding, in the name of the town, as in its judgment may be necessary, for the benefit or protection of the town” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our power pursuant to CPLR 2001 to correct that irregularity and to amend the caption by substituting the Town for the Town Board, “on behalf of” the Town … . …

… [A]lthough a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be brought against public or private corporations that “take on a quasi-governmental status” …, such “a . . . proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights’ ” … . Moreover, a declaratory judgment action is also not a proper vehicle to resolve the contractual rights herein because ” a full and adequate remedy is already provided by another well-known form of action’ ” … . Pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), however, “[i]f a court has obtained jurisdiction over the parties, a civil judicial proceeding shall not be dismissed solely because it is not brought in the proper form, but the court shall make whatever order is required for its proper prosecution.” We thus exercise our discretion under CPLR 103 (c) and convert this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action to an action for specific performance … .

“Specific performance is a discretionary remedy which is an alternative to the award of damages as a means of enforcing the contract’ . . . The right to specific performance is not automatic . . . The equitable remedy of specific performance is available in the court’s discretion when the remedy at law is inadequate . . . Finally, . . . the party seeking equity must do equity, i.e., he must come into court with clean hands” … . Here, the Town met its burden of proving that it “substantially performed [its] contractual obligations . . . within the time specified in the [2011 Contract, and] that [it] is ready, willing and able to perform those contractual obligations not yet performed and not waived by the [West Brighton Fire Department (WBFD)]” …, and the WBFD failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto … . Matter of Town Bd. of Town of Brighton v West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02581, Fourth Dept 3-27-15

 

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