You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT WHO PERFORMED THE SURGERY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ANOTHER SURGEON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action against the resident who performed the surgery (Kent) should have been dismissed because the resident was acting under the supervision of another surgeon (Doak):

With respect to the appeal by Kent and the Kaleida Health defendants, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their motion (Kaleida motion) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims against Kent because Kent did not exercise independent medical judgment during the surgery. It is well settled that a ” ‘resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene’ ” … , even where the resident ” ‘played an active role in [the plaintiff’s] procedure’ ” … . Kent and the Kaleida Health defendants met their burden on the Kaleida motion with respect to Kent by submitting evidence that plaintiff was Doak’s patient, Doak determined the surgery that was to be performed, and Doak directly supervised Kent during the facetectomy, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Van Hook v Doak, 2024 NY Slip Op 02641, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A resident who does not exercise independent medical judgment when performing surgery under the supervision of another surgeon cannot be sued for medical malpractice.

 

THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REJECTED SUPREME COURT’S RULING THAT THE ARBITRATOR “MANIFESTLY DISREGARDED SUBSTANTIVE LAW” AND THAT THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL,” EXPLAINING THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that none of Supreme Court’s grounds for vacating the arbitration award were valid. The arbitrator did not “manifestly disregard the substantive law.” The award was not “irrational.” The Fourth Department explained the criteria for both:

… [T]he court determined that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded “substantive law” applicable to the parties’ dispute when the arbitrator distinguished, rather than applied, two prior arbitration awards that petitioner and the court read as favorable to petitioner’s position on the timeliness issue. That was error. “The effect, if any, to be given to an earlier arbitration award in subsequent arbitration proceedings is a matter for determination in that forum” … . Neither petitioner nor the court identified any “substantive law applicable to the parties’ dispute” to support application of the doctrine of manifest disregard of law … . In any event, even if the two prior arbitration awards constituted substantive law, inasmuch as the record establishes that the arbitrator considered, but distinguished, those arbitration awards, we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrator “knew of a governing legal principle” that was “well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case” and “yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether … .* * *

“An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award” … . Where, however, “an arbitrator offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached, the arbitration award must be upheld” … .

Here, the arbitrator issued a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion and award in which he considered the terms of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement], the evidence adduced at the hearing, and prior arbitration awards, and we thus conclude that “[i]t cannot be said that the arbitrator’s procedural resolution of the issue concerning compliance with the contractual requirement that the demand for arbitration be made within a specified time . . . was irrational” … . Matter of Buffalo Teachers’ Fedn. (Board of Educ. of Buffalo City Sch. Dist.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02429, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: Read this decision to understand how limited the court’s role is when reviewing an arbitration award.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant that a fine was part of the sentence rendered the plea involuntary:

“[I]n order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court failed to advise defendant that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree must include a fine in an amount between $500 and $5,000 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b] [i]). People v Carmichael, 2024 NY Slip Op 02427, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to inform the defendant that a fine is part of the sentence renders the guilty plea involuntary.

 

THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER CAN BE APPLIED TO DISMISS A KIDNAPPING CHARGE EVEN IF THE LESSER OFFENSE IS NOT CHARGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the matter for consideration of the People’s remaining objection to applying the merger doctrine to the kidnapping charge. County Court had erroneously ruled the merger doctrine could not be applied to dismiss the kidnapping charge unless the lesser offense is also charged:

… [D]efendant contends that the court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the charge of kidnapping in the second degree pursuant to the merger doctrine. The kidnapping merger doctrine is a judicially-created doctrine intended to prevent overcharging and “to prohibit a conviction for kidnapping based on acts which are so much the part of another substantive crime that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts and independent criminal responsibility for kidnapping may not fairly be attributed to the accused” … . A kidnapping charge “is generally deemed to merge with another offense only where there is minimal asportation immediately preceding the other crime or where the restraint and underlying crime are essentially simultaneous” … . Even if that is so, however, there is no merger where “the manner of detention is egregious” … . We agree with defendant that the court erred in concluding that the merger doctrine did not apply because defendant was charged only with kidnapping and, therefore, there was no other crime with which the count could merge.

… [D]efendant correctly contends that he had committed acts that would have supported a conviction for menacing and, therefore, the merger doctrine was applicable whether he was charged with the lesser offense or not … . * * *

Inasmuch as the court did not rule on the People’s alternative argument—i.e., that the merger doctrine did not apply because any alleged menacing of the victim was incidental to the kidnapping—we may not affirm the decision on that ground … . We therefore … reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on the motion in accordance with this memorandum … . People v Almonte, 2024 NY Slip Op 02426, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: The doctrine of merger can be applied to dismiss a kidnapping charge even if the lesser offense is not charged.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING DEFENDANT’S BOW; DEFENDANT MOVED FOR PERMISSION TO PERFORM TESTS ON THE BOW WHICH INVOLVED REMOVING AND THEN REPLACING THE DAMAGED COMPONENT OF THE BOW; THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH TESTING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant bow manufacturer (PSE) was not entitled to testing of the bow beyond the visual inspection already done. Plaintiff was struck in the eye when using the bow. Defendant moved for permission to replace the damaged component of the bow, test the bow, and then replace the damaged component. Supreme Court had granted the motion:

A party “seeking to conduct destructive testing should provide a reasonably specific justification for such testing including, inter alia, the basis for its belief that nondestructive testing is inadequate and that destructive testing is necessary; further, there should be an enumeration and description of the precise tests to be performed, including the extent to which each such test will alter or destroy the item being tested” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the additional testing proposed by PSE is non-destructive, we conclude that PSE failed to establish in the first instance that the additional testing is “material and necessary” to its defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a] …). PSE’s expert made only a conclusory statement that re-stringing the bow with an undamaged component “should better represent the condition it was in prior to the” accident … . Therefore, even in the absence of an abuse of the court’s discretion, we substitute our own discretion for that of the motion court and deny the motion … . Roche v Precision Shooting Equip., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02419, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: There are standards which must be met in a products liability case before a court will allow testing, either nondestructive of destructive testing, of the product. Those standards were not met by the motion papers in this case.

 

THE MARIJUANA FELONY CONVICTION WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED ON A STATUTE WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED AND REPLACED WITH A MISDEMEANOR; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING AS A FIRST-TIME FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined defendant, who had been sentenced as a second felony offender, was entitled to resentencing as a first-time felony offender because his 2013 marijuana-felony conviction was based upon a statute which had been repealed and replaced by a misdemeanor:

MRTA [Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act] provides a procedural mechanism for a person, such as defendant, who has completed serving a sentence for a conviction under Penal Law former article 221 to petition the court of conviction for vacatur of that conviction where … the person would have been guilty of a lesser or potentially less onerous offense under [the new]  article 222 than under former article 221 … . … Defendant successfully moved to vacate his January 2013 felony conviction, and Supreme Court … replaced that conviction with a conviction under Penal Law § 222.30.

… [D]efendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate the sentence imposed for his 2019 conviction. He contended that the vacatur of his prior felony marihuana conviction invalidated the enhanced sentence imposed for his 2019 conviction, which was based on the prior felony conviction. … Supreme Court … granted defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence for his 2019 conviction and resentenced him as a first felony offender to 3½ years in prison and 3½ years of postrelease supervision. * * *

… [W]e conclude that one of the “purposes” … served in substituting the misdemeanor for the felony conviction is to allow for the retroactive amelioration of a predicate felony sentence. People v Parker, 2024 NY Slip Op 02414, Fourth Deptp 5-3-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s second felony offender status was based on a marijuana statute which has since been repealed and replaced with a misdemeanor. Defendant was entitled to resentencing as a first-time felony offender.

 

HERE THE PEOPLE REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING BUT THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT; THEREFORE THE ENTIRE TIME BETWEEN THE REQUEST AND THE HEARING WAS COUNTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE FOR “SPEEDY TRIAL” PURPOSES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, granting the speedy trial motion and dismissing the indictment, determined that the record did not indicate the length of an adjournment of the Huntley hearing requested by the People and, therefore, the entire time between the request and the hearing was chargeable to the People:

“Normally, the People will be charged only with the actual period of adjournment requested, following their initial statement of readiness; any additional period of delay, for the convenience of the court’s calendar, will be excludable” … . The People, however, “bear the burden of ensuring that the record explains the cause of adjournments sufficiently for the court to determine which party should properly be charged with any delay” … . Here, there is no explanation as to the reason for the requested adjournment in the record, and there is no indication on the record of the length of the adjournment the People were requesting. Thus, the entire period is chargeable to the People … . Furthermore, the adjournment is not excludable inasmuch as defendant did not expressly consent to the adjournment … . People v Bish, 2024 NY Slip Op 02409, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: If the People request an adjournment of a hearing but the record is silent about the length of the requested adjournment, the entire time between the request and the hearing may be chargeable to the People.

 

, , , ,

AN ACTION AGAINST A CORPORATION AND AN ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PRINCIPALS OF THE CORPORATION DO NOT HAVE AN “IDENTITY OF PARTIES” WHICH WOULD ALLOW DISMISSAL OF ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS; TEXT MESSAGES DO NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT BASED ON “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain causes of action should not have been dismissed. Dismissal of two causes action on the ground there existed identical causes of action in another lawsuit was error because the parties in the two lawsuits were not the same. It was error to dismiss a cause of action based on documentary evidence because text messages do not fit the definition of “documentary evidence.” It was also error to dismiss the action for conversion for failure to state a cause of action:

It is well settled that ” ‘[i]ndividual principals of a corporation are legally distinguishable from the corporation itself’ and a court may not ‘find an identity of parties by, in effect, piercing the corporate veil without a request that this be done and, even more importantly, any demonstration . . . that such a result is warranted’ ” … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in using text message excerpts to justify dismissal of the fourth cause of action or, indeed, any cause of action. Documents such as text messages “do not meet the requirements for documentary evidence” to support a CPLR 3211 (a) (4) motion … . To be considered documentary, evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity, that is, it must be essentially unassailable” … . Here, the text messages do not even identify the person who is communicating with plaintiff. The names and numbers are redacted. Moreover, the text messages do not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense as a matter of law” with respect to the fourth cause of action … . * * *

The second cause of action alleges that defendants converted plaintiff’s personal property, including dental equipment, to their own use. “Two key elements of conversion are (1) plaintiff’s possessory right or interest in the property . . . and (2) [a] defendant’s dominion over the property or interference with it, in derogation of plaintiff’s rights” … . … [W]e conclude that the pleading includes sufficient allegations to support a cause of action for conversion. Plaintiff alleged that each defendant exerted dominion and control over property to which she had a possessory right or interest … . Nosegbe v Charles, 2024 NY Slip Op 02406, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: An action against a corporation and an action against individual principals of that corporation do not have “an identity of parties” which would subject one of the actions to dismissal.

Practice Point: Text messages are not “documentary evidence” which can be the basis for dismissal of a complaint.

 

MOTHER’S LEAVING THE CHILD WITH THE PETITIONERS, THE CHILD’S BROTHER AND SISTER-IN-LAW, FOR A LITTLE MORE THAN A MONTH DID NOT MEET THE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” STANDARD FOR THE AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND PETITIONERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the award of joint custody of the child shared by mother and the child’s brother and sister-in-law (petitioners). The extraordinary circumstances required to award custody to nonparents were not demonstrated. Mother had left the child with the petitioners for a little more than a month before seeking the child’s return:

… [T]he court’s determination to award petitioners joint custody of the child along with herself and the father lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record inasmuch as petitioners failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances. ” ‘[A]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances . . . 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’ ” … . “A finding of extraordinary circumstances is rare, and the circumstances must be such that they ‘drastically affect the welfare of the child’ ” … . Such circumstances are not established by a mere showing that the nonparent “could do a better job of raising the child” … . Where a nonparent fails to establish extraordinary circumstances, “the inquiry ends” … .

… We conclude that petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the mother “relinquished her superior right to custody” … . … [T]he mother’s decision to leave the child with petitioners for a little over a month before seeking his return did not amount to the type of prolonged separation that would evidence the mother’s abandonment of the child or her intent to do so … . Matter of Adams v John, 2024 NY Slip Op 02404, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: Here the child’s brother and sister-in-law were awarded joint custody of the child with mother after mother left the child with the petitioners for a little more than a month. The “extraordinary circumstances” standard for the award of custody to nonparents was not met.

 

, ,

IN THIS PARTITION ACTION, THERE WAS NO PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE PARTIES HAD LAID THEIR PROOF BARE SUCH THAT THE COURT COULD CONSIDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have granted summary judgment in the absence of a motion and a hearing. The underlying issue is whether the subject real property should be partitioned or sold at auction:

… [D]efendant and decedent made an oral motion for … a hearing on whether the property could be partitioned. Rather than decide that motion, the court directed the parties to exchange expert reports and set the matter down for a conference, at which time a hearing would be scheduled if the parties could not come to an agreement regarding partition. However, when the parties appeared for the scheduled conference, the court did not set a date for the hearing, but, instead, held the conference, and subsequently, in effect, granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Because “there was no motion for summary judgment pending before the court at that time, . . . it was error for the court to grant such relief” … . Although a court “has the power to award summary judgment to a nonmoving party, predicated upon a motion for the relief by another party, it may not sua sponte award summary judgment if no party has moved for summary judgment . . . , unless it appears from a reading of the parties’ papers that they were deliberately charting a course for summary judgment by laying bare their proof” … . Here, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, it does not appear that the parties were deliberately charting a course for summary judgment. Indeed, the only motion pending before the court was the oral motion of defendant and decedent for … a hearing. Therefore, we reverse … and remit the matter for a hearing on whether the property may be partitioned without undue prejudice and for an accounting. The accounting shall be held “before interlocutory judgment is rendered” (RPAPL 911 …). Smith v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 02478, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: Generally a judge cannot grant summary judgment absent a motion.

Practice Point: If the parties lay bare all their proof indicating they have charted a course for summary judgment (not the case here), the court may award summary judgment absent a motion.

 

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