You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Insufficient Evidence Defendant Shared the Intent of the Seller of Heroin—Conviction Under an “Acting in Concert” or “Accomplice” Theory Reversed

Using its “interests of justice” jurisdiction over an unpreserved error, the Fourth Department determined the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction under an “acting in concert” or “accomplice” theory.  There was insufficient evidence the defendant shared the intent to sell heroin:

“To establish an acting-in-concert theory in the context of a drug sale, the People must prove not only that the defendant shared the requisite mens rea for the underlying crime but also that defendant, in furtherance of the crime, solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime . . . The key to our analysis is whether a defendant intentionally and directly assisted in achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise–—the illegal sale of a narcotic drug” … .

We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant acted in concert with the codefendant to sell heroin to the buyer inasmuch as he did nothing “more than simply direct the [buyer] to a location where [she] could purchase [heroin]” … . “While this evidence certainly demonstrated that the defendant was able to identify a local purveyor of narcotics, it did not show . . . that he shared the seller’s intent to bring the transaction about . . . [Indeed], by merely responding to the [buyer’s] inquiry as to who had drugs for sale, the defendant did nothing to solicit or request, much less demand[,] importune[, or assist in] the illicit sale” … . We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment. People v Davila, 2015 NY Slip Op 00016, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

Stop and Investigative Detention of Defendant Was Proper Under DeBour Analysis/Defendant’s Absence from Initial Sandoval Conference Cured by His Presence at a Subsequent Sandoval Hearing/Defendant’s Sentence Reduced Based In Part on a Much Lower Sentence Attached to a Plea Offer

The Fourth Department determined that the arresting officer had enough information about the defendant’s behavior to justify stopping the defendant after he left a store with a plastic garbage bag (which turned out to be full of shirts on hangers).  The court explained and applied the DeBour criteria for street stops and investigative detention.  The court further determined that defendant’s absence from a discussion in chambers of the prior crimes about which the defendant could be questioned if he testified (a Sandoval hearing) was not reversible error because the same discussion was later held on the record in defendant’s presence.  The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence, who was found to be a persistent felony offender, from 20 to 15 years, noting that he was a non-violent serial shoplifter and he had been offered a plea deal with a sentence of two to four years.  With respect to the legality of stopping and detaining the defendant, the court wrote:

…[T]he deputy sheriff observed defendant carrying the bag while walking away from the scene of a recently reported larceny and in the direction of the suspected getaway vehicle. Although there were other people in the parking lot at the time, defendant was the only person walking toward that vehicle and the only person carrying a large garbage bag, which is unusual in that setting. Based on those observations, we conclude that the deputy sheriff had the requisite founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot sufficient to justify the common-law right of inquiry … .

Moving to the next step of the DeBour analysis, we conclude that the deputy sheriff’s questions of defendant were reasonably related to the scope of the circumstances that justified the interference … . In response to the deputy sheriff’s first question, defendant offered the obviously false answer that there was nothing in the bag, which contained 61 shirts on hangers. That false answer, combined with the information already obtained by the deputy sheriff, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed or was committing a crime … . It thus follows that the deputy sheriff acted lawfully in stopping and detaining defendant for investigative purposes. People v Ellison, 2015 NY Slip Op 00015, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Supreme Court Properly Considered Documentary Evidence Re: a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)—Limited Role of Such Evidence in this Context Clarified/Criteria for Specific Performance of a Real Estate Contract Explained

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Whalen, clarified how a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) should be handled when documentary evidence is submitted by the defendant.  The case involved a real estate transaction which initially fell through when plaintiff was unable to finance it.  Years later, when plaintiff finally was able to obtain financing, it sought specific performance of the original contract. Documents tracing the history of the communications between plaintiff and defendant were submitted with the motion to dismiss.  Supreme Court considered the documents and dismissed the complaint.  The Fourth Department affirmed. In addition to an extensive discussion of the use of documentary evidence submitted in support of (and in opposition to) a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the Fourth Department explained the criteria for specific performance of a real estate contract and the role of a “time is of the essence” demand (which was not made here):

CPLR 3211 (a) (7) authorizes the summary dismissal of a complaint for failure to “state” a cause of action. Historically, “[a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action . . . was[] limited to the face of the complaint” (Rovello, 40 NY2d at 638 [Wachtler, J., dissenting]), but the Legislature enlarged the scope of facial sufficiency motions by enacting subdivision (c) of CPLR 3211, which permits “trial court[s to] use affidavits in its consideration of a pleading motion to dismiss” (id. at 635 …). The Court in Rovello held that the plain text of CPLR 3211 (c) “leaves this question,” i.e., the admissibility of affidavits on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), “free from doubt” (id. at 635). The 1st Department recently explained that Rovello’s reference to “affidavits” is merely shorthand for “evidentiary submissions” … .

As noted in Rovello, however, CPLR 3211 does not specify “what effect shall be given the contents of affidavits submitted on a motion to dismiss when the motion has not been converted to a motion for summary judgment” (id.). The Court noted that “[m]odern pleading rules are designed to focus attention on whether the pleader has a cause of action rather than on whether he has properly stated one’ ” and held that evidentiary submissions may only be considered for a “limited purpose” in assessing the facial sufficiency of a civil complaint (id. at 636). This “limited purpose,” Rovello explained, is two-fold. On the one hand, “affidavits submitted by the defendant [as movant] will seldom if ever warrant the relief” sought under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) “unless too the affidavits establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” (id. [emphasis added]). On the other hand, the nonmoving party may “freely” submit evidentiary materials “to preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious, claims” (id. at 635).

The “limited purpose” to be accorded evidentiary submissions on a motion to dismiss has been consistently reiterated by the Court of Appeals since Rovello … . Indeed, in Guggenheimer v Ginzburg (43 NY2d 268, 275), the Ct. of Appeals noted that “dismissal should . . . eventuate” only when the defendant’s evidentiary affidavits “show[] that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and . . . that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . * * *

We therefore conclude that the court properly considered defendant’s evidentiary submissions in evaluating the motion to dismiss at bar. Liberty Affordable Hous Inc v Maple Ct Apts, 2015 NY Slip Op 0003, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

Conflict of Interest Waived Where Respondent Knew of the Conflict and Participated in Prior Proceedings for Some Time

he Fourth Department determined a disqualifying conflict of interest existed between respondent and petitioner’s attorney, but that respondent had waived the conflict by participating in prior aspects of the case without objection:

…[R]espondent established that she had a prior attorney-client relationship with petitioner’s attorney, that the issues in the two litigations are substantially related, each involving ownership of the same parcel of property, and that her interests are adverse to those of petitioner … . Usually, that would create an “irrebuttable presumption of disqualification” …, but many courts have nevertheless denied disqualification upon finding that a party has waived any objection to the purported conflict of interest … .

In determining whether a party has waived any objection to a conflict of interest, “courts consider when the challenged interests became materially adverse to determine if the party could have moved [for disqualification] at an earlier time . . . If a party moving for disqualification was aware or should have been aware of the facts underlying an alleged conflict of interest for an extended period of time before bringing the motion, that party may be found to have waived any objection to the other party’s representation . . . Further, where a motion to disqualify is made in the midst of litigation where the moving party knew of the alleged conflict of interest well before making the motion, it can be inferred that the motion was made merely to secure a tactical advantage”… . Matter of David C Peters, 2015 NY Slip Op 00042, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Supreme Court Should Determine Only the Threshold Issue of Whether a Matter Is Arbitrable as Encompassed by the General Subject Matter of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Without Considering the Merits of the Underlying Claim (Which Should Be Left to the Arbitrator)

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred when it held that the parties had not agreed to arbitrate the issue (concerning a promotion).  The Fourth Department explained the criteria, noting that Supreme Court should not have been concerned with the merits of the underlying claim, but rather only the threshold issue of arbitrability:

The issue is governed by the Court of Appeals’ two-prong test to determine “whether a grievance is arbitrable” … . In the first prong of the test, known as “the may-they-arbitrate’ prong,” we “ask whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” … . If arbitration is not prohibited, we then in the second prong “examine the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] to determine if the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue,” which is known as “the did-they-agree-to-arbitrate’ prong” … .

…Supreme Court erred in concluding that the parties did not agree to arbitrate this issue. “It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, the court is concerned only with the threshold determination of arbitrability, and not with the merits of the underlying claim” … . …  “Where, as here, there is a broad arbitration clause and a reasonable relationship’ between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the [collective bargaining agreement], and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them’ ” … . Matter of County of Herkimer v Civil Serv Employees Assn Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00125, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Appeal Dismissed Pursuant to Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Reinstated Upon Posting of a Bond

The Fourth Department, which had previously dismissed respondent’s appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, reinstated the appeal upon respondent’s posting a $25,000 bond:

We previously dismissed respondent’s appeal from an “order of dismissal” entered by Family Court upon declining to sign an order to show cause seeking to vacate two orders entered on respondent’s default. One of the orders determined that respondent was in willful violation of a child support order, and the other order committed him to a term of six months of incarceration … . The court also issued a warrant for respondent’s arrest … . We determined that the fugitive disentitlement theory applied both to respondent’s order to show cause to vacate the default orders and to the subsequent appeal … . We nevertheless granted respondent leave to move to reinstate his appeal upon the posting of an undertaking in the amount of $25,000 with the court within 60 days of service of our order with notice of entry … . Respondent timely posted the undertaking and his motion to reinstate the appeal was granted by this Court.

“The principal rationales for the doctrine [of fugitive disentitlement] include: (1) assuring the enforceability of any decision that may be rendered against the fugitive; (2) imposing a penalty for flouting the judicial process; (3) discouraging flights from justice and promoting the efficient operation of the courts; and (4) avoiding prejudice to the nonfugitive party”… . By posting an undertaking in the amount of the child support arrears, we conclude that respondent has demonstrated that he is not flouting the judicial process and has provided a means of enforcement of the court’s order determining the amount of child support arrears in the event that the court’s determination is unchanged (see Family Ct Act § 471; CPLR 2502 [c]). We conclude that the fugitive disentitlement theory no longer applies to respondent … , and thus we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to Family Court to determine respondent’s application to vacate the orders entered on his default and the warrant for his arrest. Matter of Shehatou v Louka, 2015 NY Slip Op 00086, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Because the Habeas Corpus Petition Sought the Transfer of Kiko, A Chimpanzee, to Another Facility, Rather than Immediate Release, the Petition Must Be Denied, Regardless of Whether Kiko is Deemed a Person for Purposes of the Writ

The Fourth Department determined that a habeas corpus petition seeking the transfer of a chimpanzee, Kiko, to a facility with better conditions could not be granted, even if Kiko is deemed a person, because the petition did not seek Kiko’s immediate release:

Regardless of whether we agree with petitioner’s claim that Kiko is a person within the statutory and common-law definition of the writ, ” habeas corpus relief nonetheless is unavailable as [that] claim[], even if meritorious, would not entitle [Kiko] to immediate release’ ” … . It is well settled that a habeas corpus proceeding must be dismissed where the subject of the petition is not entitled to immediate release from custody … . Here, petitioner does not seek Kiko’s immediate release, nor does petitioner allege that Kiko’s continued detention is unlawful. Rather, petitioner seeks to have Kiko placed in a different facility that petitioner deems more appropriate. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project Inc v Presti, 2015 NY Slip Op 00085, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

Contract Could Potentially Be Performed Within a Year—Dismissal on Statute of Fraud Grounds Properly Denied

The Fourth Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the oral agreement violated the statute of frauds.  The court determined the contract was capable of being performed within a year:

“As long as [an] agreement may be fairly and reasonably interpreted’ such that it may be performed within a year, the [s]tatute of [f]rauds will not act as a bar [to enforcing it] however unexpected, unlikely, or even improbable that such performance will occur during that time frame” … . Here, although the parties’ original agreement provided that the purchase price would be paid in monthly installments over a period of five years, the agreement was revised to provide that if plaintiff, inter alia, transferred the accounting practice or ceased to practice for a period of 30 days, plaintiff would owe defendant the remainder of the purchase price in a lump sum. Thus, because plaintiff could have fully performed the alleged agreement within the first year by paying defendant such a lump sum, defendant did not meet her burden of establishing that the statute of frauds renders the agreement void and unenforceable … . Stevens v Perrigo, 2014 NY Slip Op 08195, 4th Dept 11-21-14

 

Defendant Not Given Adequate Time to Decide Whether to Testify Before the Grand Jury—Conviction Reversed

In reversing defendant’s conviction, the Fourth Department determined defendant was not given adequate time to decide whether he wished to testify before the grand jury:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1) (c) because he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury. The prosecutor notified defendant and his counsel at the arraignment on the felony complaint that the matter would be presented to the grand jury the next morning, in less than 24 hours. Later that day, defense counsel notified the court that he could no longer represent defendant due to a conflict of interest. The following morning, after the grand jury voted to indict defendant, he was assigned new counsel. Defense counsel objected to the short notice of the grand jury proceeding and gave the prosecutor written notice of defendant’s intent to testify. The prosecutor offered defendant the opportunity to testify before the grand jury before it filed the indictment, but refused defendant’s request to testify before a different grand jury.

We agree with defendant that he was not given “reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness” before the grand jury (CPL 190.50 [5] [a]). “CPL 190.50 (5) (a) does not mandate a specific time period for notice; rather, reasonable time’ must be accorded to allow a defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before a [g]rand [j]ury” … . Under “the particular facts” of this case (id. ), including the less than 24 hours’ notice of the grand jury proceeding and assigned counsel’s withdrawal from representation, we conclude that defendant did not have reasonable time to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before the case was presented to the grand jury … . People v Hymes, 2014 NY Slip Op 08202, 4th Dept 11-21-14

 

, ,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Property Owner in Lead-Paint-Injury Case

The Fourth Department determined the property owner was entitled to summary judgment in a lead-paint-injury case.  There was no showing defendant had notice of the presence of lead paint hazard or that defendant was negligent in abating the lead paint hazard:

“In order for a landlord to be held liable for a lead paint condition, it must be established that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition and a reasonable opportunity to remedy it, but failed to do so” … . We conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that defendants had actual or constructive notice … . Faison v Luong, 2014 NY Slip Op 07794, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

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