You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

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

 

,

Appeal Waiver Did Not Encompass Youthful Offender Status/Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender

The Fourth Department determined the defendant did not waive his right to appeal the court’s failure to adjudicate him a youthful offender and further determined defendant should be so adjudicated:

… [T]he waiver [of appeal] does not encompass defendant’s contention regarding the denial of his request for youthful offender status, inasmuch as “[n]o mention of youthful offender status was made before defendant waived his right to appeal during the plea colloquy” … .

We agree with defendant that he should have been afforded youthful offender status. Defendant was 16 years old at the time of the offense and committed the offense when he and his two friends were walking to a park, saw a vehicle with the keys in the ignition, and wondered what it would be like to steal the vehicle. Defendant expressed remorse for his actions, which we conclude were the actions of an impulsive youth rather than a hardened criminal (see People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580, 584, rearg denied 39 NY2d 1058). Thus, under the circumstances, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by adjudicating defendant a youthful offender … . People v Angel T.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 02296, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

, ,

No Notice of Claim Requirement for Suit Against Sheriff/Sheriff Can Be Liable for Negligently Training and Supervising Deputies/Whether Sheriff Entitled to Governmental Immunity Cannot Be Decided at the Pleading Stage

The Fourth Department determined no notice of claim need be filed in an action by an inmate against the county sheriff.  The court further determined the sheriff has a duty to keep prisoners safe, the sheriff can be liable for negligently training and supervising deputies who work at the jail, and the factual question whether the sheriff is entitled to governmental immunity could not be decided at the pleading stage:

Service of a notice of claim upon a public corporation is not required for an action against a county officer, appointee, or employee unless the county “has a statutory obligation to indemnify such person under [the General Municipal Law] or any other provision of law” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [b]) and, here, Erie County has no statutory obligation to indemnify defendant. Plaintiff “was not required to file a notice of claim naming [defendant] in his official capacity prior to commencing” an action against defendant … .

We further conclude that the court erred in determining that defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiff. Pursuant to Correction Law § 500-c, a sheriff has a “duty to receive and safely keep’ prisoners in the jail over which he has custody” …, and plaintiff’s first cause of action is based on an alleged violation of that duty to him. A sheriff may also be held liable for negligent training and supervision of the deputy sheriffs who worked in the jail …, which forms the basis of plaintiff’s second cause of action.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court properly determined that he is immune from liability because his alleged negligence arises from discretionary acts for which he is entitled to governmental immunity. In the context of this CPLR 3211 motion, the issue whether defendant’s alleged acts of negligence “were discretionary and thus immune from liability is a factual question which cannot be determined at the pleading stage’ ” … . Villar v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 02232, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

References to Defendant’s Prior Bad Acts in a Recorded Phone Call Were Not Inextricably Intertwined with Admissible Statements and Should Have Been Redacted—Conviction Reversed

The Fourth Department determined the inadmissible statements about defendant’s prior bad acts were not inextricably intertwined with the admissible portions of a recorded phone call.  The failure to redact the references to prior bad acts required reversal:

County Court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of prior bad acts of sexual abuse against the victim’s mother and another woman. With the assistance of the police, the victim’s mother recorded a telephone conversation between herself and defendant, and she made repeated references to the prior bad acts throughout the conversation in her attempt to have defendant admit to sexually abusing the victim. We conclude that the court erred in determining that the references to the prior bad acts were admissible because they were inextricably interwoven with the allegations against the victim. In the context of a recorded call, when references to prior bad acts in the conversation are “inextricably interwoven with the crime charged in the indictment,” the entire conversation “may be received in evidence . . . where . . . the value of the evidence clearly outweighs any possible prejudice” … . ” To be inextricably interwoven . . . the evidence must be explanatory of the acts done or words used in the otherwise admissible part of the evidence’ ” … . Here, we conclude that the disputed references were not explanatory of the rest of the conversation. The statements regarding defendant’s prior bad acts were numerous, but they could have been redacted from the transcript of the recorded call without making the statements regarding the victim incomprehensible … . In other words, the statements concerning the victim are “clearly understandable” by themselves and are “not dependent upon” the statements concerning defendant’s prior bad acts … . We further conclude that the prejudicial effect of those numerous references to the prior bad acts outweighed any probative value, and the references therefore should have been redacted … . People v Gibbs, 2015 NY Slip Op 02362, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

County Must Seek a Medical Income Execution Order (to Pay for a Child’s Health Insurance) Where No Medical Income Execution Order Has Yet Been Issued in the Case

The Fourth Department determined petitioner-county must seek a judicial medical income execution order (to pay for a child’s health insurance) and cannot simply issue an income execution on its own where no medical income execution has previously been issued in the matter:

Petitioner contends that, pursuant to CPLR 5241 (b) (2) (ii), it may issue a medical income execution to a new employer of the parent without going to court, and it was therefore error for the Support Magistrate to include the provision that a medical income execution “shall not [be issued] without such Court Order.” We conclude that petitioner’s reliance on CPLR 5241 (b) (2) (ii) is misplaced. A plain reading of that statute shows that it is not applicable here because neither parent provided health insurance coverage for the child at the time the Support Magistrate issued the order. The statute specifically provides that, “where the [parent] provides such coverage and then changes employment,” an amended medical income execution may be issued by petitioner without returning to court (id. [emphasis added]). Inasmuch as there was no medical income execution that was issued in this case, there was nothing to “amend.” Contrary to petitioner’s further contention, a medical income execution can be issued only where a court has ordered a parent to provide health insurance benefits, and that has not occurred yet inasmuch as the Support Magistrate determined that such benefits are not available (see CPLR 5241 [b] [2] [i]…). Matter of Chautauqua County Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v Matteson, 2015 NY Slip Op 02259, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Garage Not Used Exclusively for an Exempt Purpose Not Entitled to Tax Exemption/Supreme Court Should Not Have Deemed the “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” to Have Been Admitted by the Respondent, Despite Respondent’s Failure to Provide a Paragraph by Paragraph Response As Required by the Rule

The Fourth Department determined that property (a parking garage) was not entitled to tax exempt status because it was not used exclusively for an exempt purpose, noting that parking for private-practice physician’s offices was not exempt (parking for a hospital is). The Fourth Department further held that the respondent city did not admit to the petitioner’s “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” even though the city did not submit a paragraph by paragraph response as required by the relevant Rule of the Commercial Division:

It is well settled that, pursuant to the RPTL, “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for . . . hospital . . . purposes . . . and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon . . . such purpose[] . . . shall be exempt from taxation” (RPTL 420-a [1] [a]). Here, respondents concede that petitioner is organized for an exempt purpose, as a hospital, and thus only the second prong of the statute is at issue. “[T]he test of entitlement to tax exemption under the used exclusively clause of [RPTL 420-a (1) (a)] is whether the particular use is reasonably incident[al] to the [primary or] major purpose of the [corporation] . . . Put differently, the determination of whether the property is used exclusively for the statutory purposes depends upon whether its primary use is in furtherance of the permitted purposes” … . “The burden of establishing that the property is entitled to a tax exemption rests with the taxpayer” … . Additionally, when a taxpayer in a tax certiorari proceeding seeks summary judgment, “it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in his favor . . . , and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” … .

Here, we agree with respondents that petitioner failed to establish that the primary use of the subject parcels is for exempt purposes, and thus it failed to meet its burden on the motion. Indeed, the evidence submitted by petitioner in support of the motion established that an undetermined portion of the people who used the garage did so for purposes associated with nonexempt uses such as the adjacent private physicians’ offices. Inasmuch “[a]s the private practice of medicine by a hospital’s attending physicians is primarily a commercial enterprise, and such physicians’ offices are not entitled to a tax exemption under RPTL 420-a . . . , the parking spaces subleased to those offices cannot be said to so further the hospital’s purposes as to create an entitlement to an exemption” … . * * *

…[W]e conclude that the court abused its discretion in deeming respondents to have admitted all the information in petitioner’s “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” submitted pursuant to Rule 19-a of the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court ([hereafter, 19-a Statement] see 22 NYCRR 202.70 [g] [Rule 19-a (a)]). The 19-a Statement was merely an almost verbatim repetition of an affidavit submitted by one of petitioner’s employees in support of the motion, and respondents clearly disputed the content of the information in it. Further, petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form in support of the 19-a Statement, as required by the Rule (see 22 NYCRR 202.70 [g] [Rule 19-a (d)]; …). Although “the rule gives a motion court the discretion to deem facts admitted, the court is not required to do so” … . Consequently, although “it would have been better for [respondents] to submit a paragraph-by-paragraph response to [petitioner’s] statement” as required by the regulation (… see 22 NYCRR 202.70 [g] [Rule 19-a (b)]), under the circumstances the court abused its discretion in deeming the entire statement admitted. The evidence submitted in support of petitioner’s motion failed to eliminate all “triable issues of fact and the court was not compelled to grant summary judgment solely on the basis of blind adherence to the procedure set forth in Rule 19-a” … . Matter of Crouse Health Sys., Inc. v City of Syracuse, 2015 NY Slip Op 02258, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults by Other Inmates

The Fourth Department explained the law concerning when a municipality may be liable for an assault by one inmate (in county jail) upon another.  The court also noted that, absent a local law to the contrary, the county may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the county sheriff or sheriff’s deputies:

We agree with plaintiff … that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion and dismissing the complaint in its entirety on the ground that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff, who was being held in jail on a pending criminal charge at the time of the assaults. It is well settled that “[a] municipality owes a duty to inmates in correctional facilities to safeguard them from foreseeable assaults [by] other inmates” … . “[T]his duty does not render the municipality an insurer of inmate safety, and negligence cannot be established by the mere occurrence of an inmate assault . . . Rather, the scope of the [municipality’s] duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable’ ” … . We therefore modify the order… by … reinstating that part of the first cause of action alleging that defendant breached the duty it owed to plaintiff to protect him from foreseeable assaults committed by other inmates. Villar v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02229, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

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