You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

No “Extraordinary Circumstances” Existed to Justify Granting Primary Custody of Child to Grandparents

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, determined Family Court should not have granted primary custody of the child to the grandparents.  Although the grandparents had played a primary role in the child’s care for 10 years, with the mother’s permission and participation, the “extraordinary circumstances” described by the Court of Appeals as necessary to justify awarding custody to nonparents were not present:

As the Court of Appeals held in the seminal case of Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 NY2d 543, 544), “[t]he State may not deprive a parent of the custody of a child absent surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances.” The Court thereafter held that, “[s]o long as the parental rights have not been forfeited by gross misconduct . . . or other behavior evincing utter indifference and irresponsibility . .. , the natural parent may not be supplanted” (Matter of Male Infant L., 61 NY2d 420, 427). “The nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the best interests of the child” … .

…[T]he arrangement between petitioners [the grandparents] and the mother since shortly after the child’s birth and for 10 years thereafter was akin to a joint custody arrangement with petitioners having primary physical custody of the child and the mother visitation. Petitioners established that they took on the bulk of the responsibility for the child’s financial support and education. There was no showing by petitioners, however, that the mother was unfit or that she surrendered or abandoned her child … . The question then is whether they established “other equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstance[s] which would drastically affect the welfare of the child” … .

As we have held, “[w]hat proof is sufficient to establish such equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstances cannot be precisely measured” … . “[T]he fact that [a] parent agreed that a nonparent should have physical custody of the child or placed the child in the custody of a nonparent is not sufficient, by itself, to deprive the parent of custody” … . Here, while the mother allowed petitioners to have primary physical custody of the child for a prolonged period, there were no other factors to show the existence of extraordinary circumstances … . The record establishes that the child is psychologically attached to both petitioners and the mother, and there was no evidence that removing the child from petitioners’ primary custody would result in “psychological trauma . . . grave enough to threaten destruction of the child” … . The evidence at the hearing showed that the child exhibited some signs of stress after May 2012, but the record as a whole, including the Lincoln hearing, supports the conclusion that the child was stressed because of the family conflict, and would not suffer if the mother had custody of the child. Matter of Suarez v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 02293, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

The Procedure for Holding an Executive Session Does Not Apply to Proceedings Which Are Exempt from the Open Meetings Law

The Fourth Department determined that the town board need not follow the procedure in the Public Officers Law (Open Meetings Law) for holding an executive session (where the public is excluded) for matters which are exempt from the open meetings requirement. In this case a consultation between the town board and town counsel was exempt from the open meetings requirement pursuant to a provision of the Public Officers Law.  Therefore, the town board could not be faulted for keeping that consultation private without following the formal procedure for holding an executive session:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]…). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “proposed, pending or current litigation” (§ 105 [1] [d]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). There is no dispute that section 105 (1) does not extend to communications between a town board and its counsel, but section 108 (3) provides in relevant part that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” “[S]ince communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in the determination of a[n] . . . application, are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … . “When an exemption [under section 108] applies, the Open Meetings Law does not, and the requirements that would operate with respect to executive sessions are not in effect. Stated differently, to discuss a matter exempted from the Open Meetings Law, a public body need not follow the procedure imposed by § 105 (1) that relates to entry into an executive session” … . Matter of Brown v Feehan, 2015 NY Slip Op 01339, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has an Automatic Lien Re: Recovery by Injured Worker Against Third-Parties

The Fourth Department noted that a workers’ compensation carrier has a lien against any settlement the worker reaches with a third-party:

Where an individual receiving workers’ compensation benefits commences a civil action against a tortfeasor “not in the same employ who caused the injuries giving rise to such benefits . .. , an automatic lien attaches to the proceeds of any recovery, in favor of the [worker’s compensation carrier], for any amounts that the [carrier] has paid in compensation benefits, less litigation costs and amounts received in lieu of first[-]party benefits under the no-fault law” … . Klem v Special Response Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01368, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

 

,

Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Against Owner Properly Dismissed—Owner Did Not Exercise Supervisory Control Over Plaintiff’s Work

The Fourth Department determined the owner was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action based upon evidence the owner did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

It is well settled that, “[w]here the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Here, defendants met their burden on the motion of establishing that they did not direct or control plaintiff’s work …. “There is no evidence that defendant[s] gave anything more than general instructions on what needed to be done, not how to do it, and monitoring and oversight of the timing and quality of the work is not enough to impose liability under section 200” or under the common law.. . Matter of Mitchell v NRG Endergy Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01367, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, ,

Prosecutorial Misconduct Warranted a New Trial

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because of the prosecutor’s misconduct.  The prosecutor shifted the burden of proof, vouched for the single witness, and appealed to the sympathies of the jury:

The prosecutor began her summation by improperly characterizing the People’s case as “the truth” and denigrating the defense as a diversion ,,, . In addition, the prosecutor implied that defendant bore the burden of proving that the complainant had a motive to lie, thereby impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to defendant … .

Perhaps most egregiously in this one-witness case where credibility was paramount, the prosecutor repeatedly and improperly vouched for the veracity of the complainant … . The prosecutor asked the jury “to listen carefully to the 911 call. It may not clearly state what happened, but statements that [the complainant] made like, I’m bugging, but I tried to catch him, that’s why I left,’ are examples of the ring of truth.” Defense counsel objected, and the objection was sustained. Nonetheless, the prosecutor continued: “I submit to you the (complainant’s statements) are truthful.” The prosecutor also bolstered the complainant’s credibility by making herself an unsworn witness in the case … . In addressing inconsistencies between the complainant’s testimony and his earlier statement to the police, the prosecutor argued that the complainant made only “[o]ne inconsistent statement, from talking to the police and talking to me” (emphasis added). The prosecutor’s remark suggests that the complainant made numerous prior consistent statements to the police and to the prosecutor herself, and we conclude that such suggestion has no basis in the record … .

The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the sympathies of the jury by extolling the complainant’s “bravery” in calling the police and testifying against defendant … . The prosecutor told the jurors that it was “not an easy decision” for complainant to call the police, and asked them to “hang [their] hat on . . . [the complainant]’s bravery by coming in front of you.” The prosecutor argued that the neighborhood where the crime occurred and where the complainant’s family worked “is an anti-police atmosphere.” After defense counsel’s objection to that comment was sustained, the prosecutor protested that “it was a statement in evidence” when, in fact, that testimony had been stricken from the record, and County Court had specifically warned the prosecutor not “to go into what this area is like.” The prosecutor nonetheless continued her summation by asking the jurors to “[u]se [their] common sense to think about whether or not this happened and why there’s no other witnesses” (emphasis added). The prosecutor argued that the complainant “is someone who knows the game. He knows the neighborhood, and he knows what would have been the easy thing to do, and I submit to you that easy thing to do was not to call 911 that day.” She continued: “So please tell [the complainant] he did the right thing by calling 911 and telling them one man’s word is enough. Tell them that he is brave to report this.” The prosecutor ended her summation by urging the jury to “tell [the complainant] that his truthfulness is enough to convict the defendant” by returning a guilty verdict. People v Griffin, 2015 NY Slip op 01346, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, , ,

Battery Cause of Action Based Upon the Complete Absence of Consent or Fraudulently Induced Consent Is Not Duplicative of a Dental Malpractice Allegation—Criteria Explained/Questions of Fact Raised Re: the Deceptive Business Practices Cause of Action—Some of the Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department determined the cause of action for battery was not duplicative of the cause of action for dental malpractice because it was based upon the allegations consent to the procedure was completely absent or was fraudulently induced.  In addition, there were questions of fact re: the deceptive business practices cause of action:

…[T]he cause of action asserting the complete absence of consent and/or fraudulently induced consent for treatment is properly treated as one for battery rather than for dental malpractice, and it is not duplicative of the dental malpractice cause of action … . “It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . The court properly denied that part of the … defendants’ motion with respect to the battery cause of action, inasmuch as they failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not intentionally engage in offensive bodily contact without plaintiff’s consent”… . …

A cause of action for deceptive business practices under section 349 “requires proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially deceptive or misleading, causing injury” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the … defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the underlying transaction was private in nature and the allegedly deceptive acts were not aimed at the public at large …, we conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raised issues of fact concerning whether the … defendants engaged in a scheme to place profits before patient care, which allegedly included fraudulent practices that impacted consumers at large beyond a particular dentist’s treatment of an individual patient … . Matter of Smiles, 2015 NY Slip Op 01362, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

,

Elements of Civil Antitrust Action Under the General Business Law (Donnelly Act) Explained; Corporate Officers Can Be Individually Liable

The Fourth Department determined there were questions of fact re: the civil antitrust action and the related individual liability of corporate officers:

… [T]he court erred in granting those parts of defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action against them, alleging unfair competition and restraint of trade in violation of General Business Law § 340 (1) (hereafter, Donnelly Act), and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. … “A party asserting a violation of the Donnelly Act is required to (1) identify the relevant product market; (2) describe the nature and effects of the purported conspiracy; (3) allege how the economic impact of that conspiracy is to restrain trade in the market in question; and (4) show a conspiracy or reciprocal relationship between two or more entities” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized, however, “that neither the Donnelly Act nor the Sherman Act, after which it was modeled, has been interpreted as prohibiting every agreement that has the effect of restraining trade, no matter how minimal. Instead, as construed by State and Federal courts, the antitrust laws prohibit only unreasonable’ restraints on trade” … . * * *

“[C]orporate officer[s] can also be held liable in civil antitrust actions” under the Donnelly Act, and there are triable issues of fact regarding their participation in the alleged corporate antitrust violations … . Radon Corp of Am Inc v National Radon Safety Bd. 2015 NY Slip Op 01365, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, , ,

Town Board and Police Commission Members Entitled to Immunity and Qualified Privilege Re: Defamation Causes of Action—Criteria Described/Power to Terminate Probationary Police Officer Described

The Fourth Department determined statements attributed to members of the town board and police commission with respect to the reasons for plaintiff’s termination as a probationary police officer were protected by governmental immunity and qualified privilege (explaining the relevant criteria).  In addition, the court explained the power to terminate a probationary police officer:

There is complete immunity from liability for defamation for ” an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government who is entrusted by law with administrative or executive policy-making responsibilities of considerable dimension’ . . . , with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” … . Here, the Town Board has the statutory authority to “make, adopt and enforce rules, orders and regulations for the government, discipline, administration and disposition of the police department and of the members thereof” (Town Law § 154) and, as members of the Police Commission, [defendants] were delegated “all the powers relative to police matters conferred upon the town board” (§ 150 [2]). We therefore conclude that Brooks, Sullivan, and Ulinski were entitled to absolute immunity because “members of the Town Board enjoy an absolute privilege against a claim of defamation where . . . the defamatory statements are made in the discharge of their responsibilities about matters within the ambit of their duties” …, and “[t]he privilege of absolute immunity . . . extends to those of subordinate rank who exercise delegated powers’ ” … . …

A qualified privilege arises when a person makes a good[ ]faith, bona fide communication upon a subject in which he or she has an interest, or a legal, moral or societal interest to speak, and the communication is made to a person with a corresponding interest’ ” … . Here, defendants submitted evidence that, at the time of the alleged slanderous communications, Ulinski was a member of the Police Commission and, therefore, had an interest in plaintiff’s performance as a probationary police officer, and that Ulinski made the communications to persons with a corresponding interest in plaintiff’s performance, namely to a member of the Town Board, and to the president of the union that represented plaintiff … . We further conclude that plaintiffs “failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice” … . * * *

As a probationary police officer, plaintiff could be ” dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all[,]’ . . . [and he] had no right to challenge the termination by way of a hearing or otherwise, absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason” … . Fiore v Town of Whitestown, 2015 NY Slip Op 01361, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

,

“Local Authority,” Within the Meaning of the Public Authorities Law, Defined

The Fourth Department determined petitioner, Operation Oswego County, was a “local authority” subject to reporting and oversight requirements of respondent, the New York Authorities Budget Office.  The court defined what a “local authority” is:

A “local authority” under the Public Authorities Law includes “a not-for-profit corporation affiliated with, sponsored by, or created by a county, city, town or village government” (§ 2 [2] [b]). Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation that acts as a local development corporation by establishing and implementing economic development strategies for Oswego County (County). We agree with respondent that petitioner is a local authority inasmuch as it is affiliated with and/or sponsored by the County … . The record establishes that the County regularly gives grants to petitioner, which comprise the majority of its budget. …[T]he term “sponsor” means, inter alia, ” a person or an organization that pays for or plans and carries out a project or activity’ ” (id. at 1404, quoting Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary [emphasis added]). The County has also given interest-free loans to petitioner. Furthermore, a County official serves as a voting member of petitioner’s board, and several County officials serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of petitioner’s board. Considering the totality of the circumstances …, we conclude that petitioner is a local authority as defined in the Public Authorities Law. Matter of Operation Oswego County Inc v State of New York Auths Budget Off, 2015 NY Slip Op 01358, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, ,

“Arbitrary and Capricious” Defined/Criteria for Elimination of a Public-Employee Position Explained

In affirming the school district's actions in creating a new position and eliminating an existing position, the Fourth Department explained the relevant review standards:

“The arbitrary or capricious test chiefly relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified . . . and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact' . . . Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts… . * * *

“It is well established that a public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purposes of economy or efficiency . . . , but it may not act in bad faith in doing so . . . , nor may it abolish positions as a subterfuge to avoid the statutory protection afforded civil servants before they are discharged . . . A petitioner challenging the abolition of his or her position must establish that the employer in question acted in bad faith” … . Matter of Ifedigbo v Buffalo Pub Schools, 2015 NY Slip Op 01125, 4th Dept 2-6-15


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