You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

No Statute of Limitations Applies to an Owner Seeking to Have an Apparent Encumbrance Struck from the Record

The Fourth Department determined the six-year statute of limitations did not apply to an owner in possession of land who seeks to have an apparent encumbrance discharged from the record.  Supreme Court erred when it determined a six-year statute began to run when a tax deed erroneously purported to transfer the property:

“It is well settled that an owner in possession has a right to invoke the aid of a court of equity at any time while he is so the owner and in possession, to have an apparent, though in fact not a real incumbrance discharged from the record and such right is never barred by the [s]tatute of [l]imitations. It is a continuing right which exists as long as there is an occasion for its exercise” … . Indeed, “[a] [s]tatute of [l]imitations is one of repose designed to put an end to stale claims and was never intended to compel resort to legal remedies by one who is in complete enjoyment of all he claims . . . The logic of such a view is inescapably correct, for otherwise, the recording of the deed resulting from such a proceeding would transform the owner's absolute title in fee simple into a right of action only, the exercise of which is subject to time limitation” … .

We conclude that, inasmuch as plaintiff and his predecessors in interest have always held title and have been in continuous possession of the disputed property, the tax deed to defendants' predecessor in interest was void with respect to the disputed property because the County of Onondaga could not convey an interest in land that it did not have … . Indeed, “[a] purchaser who fails to use due diligence in examining the title is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed” … . Here, due diligence on the part of defendants would have disclosed the error in the 1959 transfer of the disputed property. Crain v Mannise, 2015 NY Slip Op 01109, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Action Challenging a City Resolution to Sell City Property to an Identified Purchaser Is a Challenge to an Administrative Act and Is Therefore Governed by the Four-Month “Article 78” Statute of Limitations

The Fourth Department determined the four-month “Article 78” statute of limitations applied to a challenge to a city resolution allowing the sale of city property to a particular, named purchaser  (which was an administrative act).  The action, therefore, was properly dismissed as time-barred. The court explained how an action is analyzed to determine the nature of it for purposes of applying the correct statute of limitations:

The causes of action under General Municipal Law § 51 have no specific limitations period, and we must “examine the substance of th[e] action to identify the relationship out of which the claim[s] arise[] and the relief sought” … . “If the rights of the parties may be resolved in a different form of proceeding for which a specific limitations period applies, then we must use that period” … . Ultimately, “the nature of the remedy rather than the theory of liability is the salient consideration in ascertaining the applicable [s]tatute of [l]imitations” … . Here, plaintiffs are challenging the resolution authorizing defendant Mayor to execute a purchase and sale agreement for the garage. The resolution was an administrative act, rather than a legislative act, inasmuch as it applies only to the City and [the purchaser]… . It is well established that the proper vehicle for challenging an administrative act is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and thus the four-month statute of limitations under CPLR 217 applies … . Riverview Dev LLC v City of Oswego, 2015 NY Slip Op 01105, 4th Dept 2-6-15


Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate Investigation Into the Allegation of Improper Outside Influence on the Jury Before Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Verdict—Matter Sent Back for an Evidentiary Hearing

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court did not conduct an adequate investigation of alleged outside influence upon the jurors before granting plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.  There was an allegation a person who worked for an insurance company which insured some of the defendants was “stalking” the jury during the trial:

It is well settled that the decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) is committed to the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion … . Here, we agree with defendants that the court abused its discretion in the manner in which it investigated and determined the issue whether there had been improper outside influence on the jury that “was such as would be likely . . . to influence the verdict” … . Shortly after the trial had concluded and the jury was discharged, the court received notice of an allegation from one juror that a person attending the trial had been “stalking” the impaneled jurors on lunch breaks and during other recess periods. The juror described the individual's behavior as “creepy.” It was later learned that the individual was a representative of an insurance company monitoring the progress of the trial because it insured many of the defendants. As a result of the “stalking” allegation, the court conducted its own investigation and ultimately set aside the verdict, which had been entirely in defendants' favor, and ordered a new trial. We agree with defendants that the court abused its discretion in conducting an in camera interview of the complaining juror without notifying counsel, without seeking counsels' consent to that procedure …, and without providing counsel with an opportunity to be heard or to participate, even in some restricted manner, in the interview of the juror … . Further, the court limited its investigation to one juror, and we conclude that the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a more expanded investigation, including, at a minimum, conducting an interview of all of the jurors … . Lastly, the court abused its discretion in prohibiting counsel from contacting any jurors until after plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict was decided. This unnecessary prohibition essentially precluded defendants from obtaining and submitting any meaningful opposition to plaintiff's motion, the practical result being that the granting of plaintiff's motion was a foregone conclusion. Varano v Forba Holdings LLX 2015 NY Slip OP 01090, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

More Sophisticated DNA Test, Ruling Out the Defendant as the Source of Semen, Was a Proper Basis for Vacating Defendant’s Conviction–Criteria Described

The Fourth Department upheld County Court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate his rape conviction because a recent DNA test demonstrated he was not the source of semen found in the victim's vagina (the source was the victim's boyfriend).  At the time of the trial the DNA results were inconclusive and the prosecutor had argued the presence of semen corroborated the victim's assertion defendant had raped her:

“It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on newly [*2]discovered evidence, the movant must establish, inter alia, that there is newly discovered evidence: (1) which will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) which was discovered since the trial; (3) which could not have been discovered prior to trial; (4) which is material; (5) which is not cumulative; and[] (6) which does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence” … . “The power to grant an order for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is purely statutory. Such power may be exercised only when the requirements of the statute have been satisfied, the determination of which rests within the sound discretion of the court” … . People v White, 2015 NY Slip Op 01075, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

An Action by a Judgment Creditor Pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227 Seeks both Legal and Equitable Relief—a Jury Trial Is Therefore Not Available

The Fourth Department determined an action to enforce a judgment against a party other than the judgment debtor (here a judgment creditor) under CPLR 5225 and 5227 is a proceeding for both legal and equitable relief for which a jury trial is not available:

“[T]he right to trial by jury is zealously protected in our jurisprudence and yields only to the most compelling circumstances” … . “Trial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever” (NY Const, art 1, § 2). “That guarantee extends to all causes of action to which the right attached at the time of adoption of the 1894 Constitution . . . Historically, however, actions at law were tried by a jury, [and] matters cognizable in equity were tried by the Chancellor. Even though the two systems have merged, vestiges of the law-equity dichotomy remain in the area relating to trial by jury” … .

Thus, the right to a jury trial “depends upon the nature of the relief sought” … . Under the CPLR, a jury trial is available in an action “in which a party demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only” (CPLR 4101 [1] [emphasis added]). Where a plaintiff joins legal and equitable causes of action in a complaint, it waives its right to a jury trial … . * * *

…[W]e conclude that enforcement of a judgment under CPLR 5225 and 5227 against a party other than the judgment debtor is an outgrowth of the “ancient creditor's bill in equity,” which was used after all remedies at law had been exhausted. We thus conclude that [the judgment creditor's] use of CPLR 5225 and 5227 in this case is in furtherance of both legal and equitable relief and, therefore, that [the judgment creditor] is not entitled to a jury trial on those combined legal and equitable claims … . Matter of Colonial Sur Co v  Lakeview Advisors LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01002, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

,

Evidence Sufficient to Support Count Charging Sexual Abuse First Degree, Despite Evidence Defendant Did Not Touch the Victim for the Purpose of Gratifying Sexual Desire

The Fourth Department determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the count charging sexual abuse in the first degree.  The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence defendant touched the victim for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.  Based upon what the defendant said at the time, the purpose of his touching the victim was to determine whether she had recently had sex with another.  The court explained the level of proof required at the grand jury stage:

” Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 70.10 [1]). Thus, “[o]n a motion to dismiss an indictment based on legally insufficient evidence, the issue is whether the evidence before the [g]rand [j]ury establishes a prima facie case” … . In deciding a motion to dismiss a count of an indictment for legally insufficient evidence, a “reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crime[],' and whether the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' . . . That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' ” … .

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact . . . [b]y forcible compulsion” (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]), and sexual contact is defined as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (§ 130.00 [3]). Consequently, the People were required to submit sufficient evidence from which the grand jury could have inferred that defendant touched the victim's vagina for the purpose of gratifying his or the victim's sexual desire. It is well settled that, “[b]ecause the question of whether a person was seeking sexual gratification is generally a subjective inquiry, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrator” … . Here, we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to permit the grand jury to infer that defendant touched the sexual and intimate parts of the victim's body by forcible compulsion for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire … . To require, as defendant suggests, that the reviewing court accept the explanation that defendant proffered for his conduct, “would skew a reviewing court's inquiry and restrict, if not extinguish, the [g]rand [j]ury's unassailable authority to consider logical inferences that flow from the facts presented to it” … . People v Hoffert, 2015 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-6-15


Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of Particulars, Not an “Amended” Bill of Particulars—Motion In Limine Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion in limine because the bill of particulars was merely supplemented, not amended, by the additional information. The court also noted that the motion to preclude expert testimony was properly denied because there was no showing of a willful or intentional failure to disclose and no showing of prejudice:

“Where the plaintiff[s] seek[] to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in previous bills of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries, the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars' ” … . Here, plaintiffs' second supplemental bill of particulars alleged that plaintiff may require surgery in the future, which could involve anterior C5-6 and C6-7 discectomy and fusion. In addition, plaintiffs alleged “future cumulative economic loss” of between approximately $1,299,555.00 and $1,699,464.00. Plaintiffs had alleged in their prior bills of particulars that plaintiff may require surgery and that there would be a claim for future lost earnings. Thus, the portions of the second supplemental bill of particulars at issue were “an anticipated sequelae” of the injuries and damages previously alleged and did not allege new claims … . Sisemore v Leffler, 2015 NY Slip Op 01076, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

,

Prosecutorial Misconduct Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial

The Fourth Department, exercising its “interest of justice” jurisdiction, over a dissent, determined the misconduct of the prosecutor warranted a new trial.  The prosecutor improperly questioned defendant about his homosexuality and the criminal records of persons with whom defendant resided, The prosecutor further improperly introduced evidence of defendant's propensity to commit a crime and elicited bolstering testimony from a police officer about the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome without qualifying the officer as an expert in that area. With respect to the police officer's testimony, the court wrote:

…[T]he prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from a police investigator that he had received training establishing that underaged victims of sexual crimes frequently disclosed the crime in minimal detail at first, and provided more thorough and intimate descriptions of the event later. That testimony dovetailed with the People's position concerning the way in which the victim revealed this incident … . Thus, we conclude that the investigator's testimony “was the precise equivalent of affirming the credibility of the People's witness through the vehicle of an opinion that [sexual abuse is frequently committed] as the victim had related. It is always within the sole province of the jury to decide whether the testimony of any witness is truthful or not. The jurors were fully capable of using their ordinary experience to test the credibility of the victim-witness; and the receipt of the [investigator]'s testimony in this regard was improper and indeed constituted usurpation of the function of the jury . . . Where, as here, the sole reason for questioning the expert' witness is to bolster the testimony of another witness (here the victim) by explaining that his version of the events is more believable than the defendant's, the expert's' testimony is equivalent to an opinion that the defendant is guilty” (People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 439), and the prosecutor improperly elicited that testimony.

Moreover, by eliciting that testimony, the prosecutor improperly introduced expert testimony regarding the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Although such testimony is admissible in certain situations …, here it was elicited from a police investigator under the guise that it was part of the investigator's training. The prosecutor failed to lay a foundation establishing that the investigator was qualified to provide such testimony …. Furthermore, the evidence does not establish that the investigator had “extensive training and experience [that] rendered [him] qualified to provide such [testimony]” … . People v Scheidelman, 2015 NY Slip Op 01111, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Evidence Sufficient to Support Count Charging Sexual Abuse First Degree, Despite Evidence Defendant Did Not Touch the Victim for the Purpose of Gratifying Sexual Desire

The Fourth Department determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the count charging sexual abuse in the first degree.  The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence defendant touched the victim for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.  Based upon what the defendant said at the time, the purpose of his touching the victim was to determine whether she had recently had sex with another.  The court explained the level of proof required at the grand jury stage:

” Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 70.10 [1]). Thus, “[o]n a motion to dismiss an indictment based on legally insufficient evidence, the issue is whether the evidence before the [g]rand [j]ury establishes a prima facie case” … . In deciding a motion to dismiss a count of an indictment for legally insufficient evidence, a “reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crime[],' and whether the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' . . . That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' ” … .

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact . . . [b]y forcible compulsion” (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]), and sexual contact is defined as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (§ 130.00 [3]). Consequently, the People were required to submit sufficient evidence from which the grand jury could have inferred that defendant touched the victim's vagina for the purpose of gratifying his or the victim's sexual desire. It is well settled that, “[b]ecause the question of whether a person was seeking sexual gratification is generally a subjective inquiry, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrator” … . Here, we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to permit the grand jury to infer that defendant touched the sexual and intimate parts of the victim's body by forcible compulsion for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire … . To require, as defendant suggests, that the reviewing court accept the explanation that defendant proffered for his conduct, “would skew a reviewing court's inquiry and restrict, if not extinguish, the [g]rand [j]ury's unassailable authority to consider logical inferences that flow from the facts presented to it” … . People v Hoffert, 2015 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-6-15


“Falling Objects” Protection Afforded by Labor Law 240 (1) Explained

In affirming the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the law relating to “falling objects:”

Labor Law § 240 (1) “applies to both falling worker' and falling object' cases” …, and that section 240 (1) guards “workers against the special hazards' that arise when the work site either is itself elevated or is positioned below the level where materials or load [are] hoisted or secured' ” … . To recover under section 240 (1), a worker injured by a falling object must thus establish both (1) that the object was being hoisted or secured, or that it ” required securing for the purposes of the undertaking,' ” and (2) that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device to guard against a risk involving the application of the force of gravity over a physically significant elevation differential … . Floyd v New York State Thruway Auth, 2015 NY Slip Op 01131, 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