You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Court’s Failure to Elicit Unequivocal Declarations Jurors Could Set Aside their Biases Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined the court’s failure to elicit an unequivocal declaration jurors could set aside their bias and render an impartial verdict required reversal:

It is well established that “[p]rospective jurors who make statements that cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict, and who have given less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality, must be excused” … . While no “particular expurgatory oath or talismanic’ words [are required,] . . . [prospective] jurors must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent them from reaching an impartial verdict” … . During voir dire, the statements of three prospective jurors with respect to the credibility of the testimony of police officers or bias in favor of the police cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict …, and those prospective jurors failed to provide “unequivocal assurance that they [could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Contrary to the court’s conclusion, we conclude that the nodding by these three prospective jurors as part of a group of prospective jurors who were “all nodding affirmatively in regard to the statement [of another prospective juror]” was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration”… . People v Strassner, 2015 NY Slip Op 02342, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Application for Variance Properly Denied—Courts’ Review Powers Re: Actions of Zoning Board Explained

The Fourth Department determined the zoning board properly denied the petitioner’s application for a variance and explained the courts’ review powers in this context:

It is well settled that the determination whether to grant or deny an application for an area variance is committed to the broad discretion of the applicable local zoning board … . Consequently, when reviewing the denial of an application for an area variance, “[j]udicial review [of such a determination] is . . . limited to the issue whether the action taken by the [board] was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion’ . . . [, and the b]oard’s determination should therefore be sustained so long as it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence’ ” … . A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of a local zoning board …, “even if there is substantial evidence supporting a contrary determination” … .

Here, the record establishes that respondent reviewed the appropriate statutory factors in making its determination (see General City Law § 81-b [4] [b]), and concluded that the application should be denied because, inter alia, the variances would cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, the variances are substantial, and petitioners’ hardship is self-created (see § 81-b [4] [b] [i], [iii], [v]). Matter of People, Inc. v City of Tonawanda Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 02257, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

,

“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

 

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

 

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