You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

Frisk Not Justified Under DeBour Analysis

The Fourth Department determined the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion defendant was committing a crime and had no reasonable basis to suspect he was in danger at the time he frisked the defendant:

It is well established that, in evaluating the legality of police conduct, we “must determine whether the action taken was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter” (…People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 215). In De Bour, the Court of Appeals “set forth a graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police: level one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality; level two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater intrusion and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot; level three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual, and requires a reasonable suspicion that the particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor; [and] level four, arrest, requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime” (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 498-499).

Here, contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the information provided in the 911 dispatch coupled with the officers’ observations provided the police with “an objective, credible reason for initially approaching defendant and requesting information from him” … . The officers pulled up next to defendant and, without exiting the vehicle, asked to see defendant’s identification and asked defendant where he was going and where he was coming from, which was a permissible level one intrusion … .

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that his failure to answer the officers’ questions about where he was going and where he was coming from, when added to the information acquired from the police dispatch and defendant’s heightened interest in the patrol car, created a “founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot,” justifying a level two intrusion … . The common-law right of inquiry “authorized the police to ask questions of defendant—and to follow defendant while attempting to engage him—but not to seize him in order to do so” … . The police therefore acted lawfully in following defendant for the purpose of obtaining an answer to their valid questions about his whereabouts. The encounter, however, quickly escalated to a level three intrusion when one of the officers grabbed defendant’s hand and patted the outside of his pants pocket. “[A] stop and frisk is a more obtrusive procedure than a mere request for information or a stop invoking the common-law right of inquiry, and as such normally must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the particular person has committed or is about to commit a crime” … . ” [W]here no more than a common-law right to inquire exists, a frisk must be based upon a reasonable suspicion that the officers are in physical danger and that defendant poses a threat to their safety’ “* * * …[U]nlike in other cases where we have sanctioned a frisk for weapons, there was no evidence in this case that defendant refused to comply with the officers’ directives or that he made any furtive, suspicious, or threatening movements … . Indeed, under the circumstances of this case, the presence of defendant’s hand in his left pants pocket was particularly innocuous and ” readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation’ ” … . Defendant retrieved his identification from his left pants pocket and returned it to that pocket after complying with the officers’ request to produce identification … .

We therefore conclude that, “[b]ecause the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime and had no reasonable basis to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury, . . . the ensuing pat frisk of defendant was unlawful” … . People v Burnett, 2015 NY Slip Op 02613, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

Questions of Fact Whether Name Added to Bank Account Created a Convenience Account or a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s adding another’s (John’s) name to a bank account was done for convenience or to provide John with a right to the funds:

There is no dispute that the account in which the funds had been deposited was designated a joint account. The sole question is whether that account was a convenience account, in which case the money deposited therein would be considered “the sole property of [plaintiff]” and could not be used to satisfy a judgment against John (… see Banking Law § 678). Otherwise, if the account was a joint tenancy account with a right of survivorship or a tenancy in common account, John would be deemed to have “an ownership interest in one half of the moneys deposited therein” … . Defendant contends that, by placing John’s name on the bank account as a joint tenant, the account is presumed to be a joint tenancy account with a right of survivorship (see Banking Law § 675). We reject that contention. “Although the bank account is designated as joint,’ the account documents do not contain the necessary survivorship language, and thus the statutory presumption of a right of survivorship does not apply” … .

We agree with defendant that plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that she intended to create a convenience account (see Banking Law § 678), as opposed to either a joint tenancy account with right of survivorship (see § 675), or a tenancy in common account (see EPTL 6-2.2 [a]). …  Plaintiff stated that she added John’s name to the account because she was “fearful for [her] own safety” and “feared the risk of additional violence against [her].” Plaintiff wanted to make sure that, if anything happened to her, “the funds [would] be available for the welfare of [her] granddaughter.” Those statements seemingly establish that plaintiff “did not have a present intention to transfer an interest in the [money] to [John], despite having placed his name on the [account]” … . Moreover, John made no deposits or withdrawals to the account, which also supports plaintiff’s position that the account was opened as a matter of convenience only … .

Nevertheless, we conclude that plaintiff’s statements raise a triable issue of fact whether she intended John to have a right of survivorship in the joint tenancy account. …[W]hile the signature card’s reference to a document stating that rights of survivorship are created when obtaining a joint bank account is insufficient to invoke the statutory presumption of Banking Law § 675 … , it is a factor that may be considered when determining whether the bank account is a joint tenancy account with survivorship rights … . Sweetman v Suhr, 2015 NY Slip Op 02583, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

Family Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Consider the Least Restrictive Alternative Disposition in a Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding

The Fourth Department determined Family Court had not considered the least restrictive available alternatives for disposition in a non-felony juvenile delinquency proceeding.  Family Court had placed the juvenile in the custody of the Department of Social Services for 12 months for each of three adjudications:

It is well settled that, when determining an appropriate disposition in a juvenile delinquency case involving acts that are not felonies, “the court shall order the least restrictive available alternative” and “shall consider the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]…). Although “[t]he court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in juvenile delinquency cases” …, we agree with respondent that the court abused its discretion under the circumstances presented here. The evidence presented at the dispositional hearing and the predispositional and probation update reports prepared in conjunction with that hearing establish that respondent’s home environment was “toxic” and he suffered from mental health issues that required treatment. In addition, the update to the original report indicated that respondent had recently been staying with a family friend who had known him since birth, that the friend had petitioned for custody of respondent, and that there had been no new arrests during that time. The update also indicated that the friend was able to devote significant time to supervising respondent, and that the friend resided with a woman who managed a residential home. In addition, both the family friend and the woman with whom he lived testified at the dispositional hearing that they could help with respondent’s supervision. Consequently, “we agree with [respondent] that the court erred in failing to consider the least restrictive available alternative in fashioning an appropriate dispositional order” … . We therefore modify the order by vacating the disposition and, in light of the lapse of time since the order was entered, we remit the matter to Family Court for a new dispositional hearing. Matter of Jacob A.T., 2015 NY Slip Op 02658, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

Duration of Supervised Visits Cannot Be Left Up to Supervising Agency

The Fourth Department noted that Family Court failed to set up a proper visitation schedule because the court left the duration of the visits up to the supervising agency:

Although the court’s determination that visitation must be supervised is supported by the record …, we note that the court set no minimum time period for the monthly visitation and left the duration of visitation, “up to a maximum of eight hours,” to be determined solely based on the availability of “any authorized agency that supervises visitation.” Consequently, we agree with the mother that the court “erred in failing to set a supervised visitation schedule, implicitly leaving it to the supervisor to determine” the duration of each visit … . We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Family Court to determine the duration of visitation… . Matter of Ordona v Cothern, 2015 NY Slip Op 02652, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

Stipulation to a Reduced Tax Assessment Freezes the Assessment at the Reduced Level for Three Years by Operation of Statute

Choosing not to follow the 3rd Department, the Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, determined a stipulation to a reduced property tax assessment is equivalent to a judicial reduced assessment and is frozen at the reduced level for three years pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 727:

RPTL 727 (1) provides in relevant part that, “[e]xcept as hereinafter provided, . . . where an assessment being reviewed pursuant to this article is found to be unlawful, unequal, excessive or misclassified by final court order or judgment, the assessed valuation so determined shall not be changed for such property for the next three succeeding assessment rolls prepared on the basis of the three taxable status dates next occurring on or after the taxable status date of the most recent assessment under review in the proceeding subject to such final order or judgment. Where the assessor or other local official having custody and control of the assessment roll receives notice of the order or judgment subsequent to the filing of the next assessment roll, he or she is authorized and directed to correct the entry of assessed valuation on the assessment roll to conform to the provisions of this section.”

…[T]he statute imposes a three-year freeze of the assessment where an order or judgment is issued determining that the assessment is unlawful, unequal, excessive, or misclassified … . Where, as here, there is a stipulation between the parties agreeing to a lower assessment, the stipulation has the same effect as a judicial determination that the assessment is unlawful, unequal, excessive, or misclassified … . The three-year freeze applies to the “next three succeeding assessment rolls” from the “date of the most recent assessment under review” (RPTL 727 [1]). Here, the assessment under review was the 2007 tax year, and therefore the next three succeeding assessment rolls, i.e., from 2008 through 2010, must have that same assessment. The second sentence of RPTL 727 (1), which was added a few years after the statute was enacted, specifically addresses the situation in which the assessor receives the order or judgment after the next assessment roll has already been filed. In that case, the assessor is directed to correct the assessed valuation “to conform to” the requirements of RPTL 727. Once the assessment has been corrected, the property owner may make an application for a refund (see RPTL 726 [1] [c]). Therefore, the application of RPTL 727 (1) in this case resulted in an automatic reduction in the assessment for the 2008-2009 school tax year, without the need for any filing of a tax certiorari proceeding by petitioner.  Matter of The Torok Trust v Town Bd. of Town of Alexandria, 2015 NY Slip Op 02632, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

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

 

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