You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle Proper

In upholding the validity of an inventory search of defendant’s vehicle, the Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria:

It is well settled that, “[w]hen the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith’ ” … . Thus, “[h]aving arrested the defendant [in] a public [parking lot], the officers were thereafter entitled to impound the vehicle” … . Furthermore, “[i]t is settled law that the police may search an impounded vehicle to inventory its contents” … . “Such searches, conducted as routine procedures, are permitted to protect an owner’s property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police against false claims for missing property and to protect the police from potential danger” … . Here, the police officers properly impounded the vehicle that defendant drove to the scene of the crime and performed an inventory search of that vehicle pursuant to a reasonable Cheektowaga Police Department procedure, during which they discovered the handgun. Consequently, the court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized during that inventory search. People v Tardi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07880, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

Petition by the District Attorney Against the Sentencing Judge Seeking Vacation of the Sentence Imposed, Because the District Attorney Did Not Agree to It, Dismissed—Granting the Petition Would Direct the Judge to Violate Criminal Procedure law 220.10(4) and Would Violate the Defendant’s Protection Against Double Jeopardy

The Fourth Department dismissed a petition brought against a judge by a district attorney seeking the vacation of a plea on the ground that the district attorney did not agree to it.  The district attorney argued he had agreed to a six-year sentence, not the five-year sentence imposed by the judge:

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus ” is never granted for the purpose of compelling the performance of an unlawful act’ ” …, and the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that, after the entry of judgment and the commencement of sentence, courts have no statutory or inherent authority to vacate, over a defendant’s objection, a plea taken in contravention of CPL 220.10 or related statutory provisions … . Indeed, absent extrinsic fraud, “[i]n no instance ha[s the Court of Appeals] recognized a court’s inherent [or statutory] power to vacate a plea and sentence over defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error apparent on the face of the record and where the proceeding has terminated by the entry of judgment” … . Thus, mandamus does not lie here because we cannot compel respondent to exceed his statutory and inherent authority by directing him to vacate a plea taken in violation of CPL 220.10 (4) (a) after the commencement of sentence.

Furthermore, “restor[ing] the matter to its pre-plea status,” as petitioner seeks, would violate defendant’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention, CPL 40.30 (3) “does not aid the analysis of the double jeopardy issue” … . The Court of Appeals has held that a plea taken without the People’s consent is not a nullity for purposes of that provision … .

Apart from the legal infirmities of petitioner’s position, we further conclude that the record does not factually support that position. Specifically, the record belies petitioner’s contention that his consent to defendant’s plea was conditioned on the imposition of a determinate, six-year term of imprisonment. Matter of Budelmann v Leone, 2014 NY Slip Op 07797, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Abuse of Discretion to Entertain a Motion to Suppress Brought More than 45 Days After Arraignment (the Motion Had Been Granted and the People Appealed)

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical blood test should not have been granted because the motion was made more than 45 days after arraignment:

The People appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of defendant’s blood, which had been taken from defendant more than two hours after his arrest (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]). The motion was made … more than 45 days after defendant’s arraignment …, and was therefore untimely as a matter of law (see CPL 255.20 [1]). We conclude that County Court abused its discretion in entertaining and granting the untimely motion because there was no good cause shown by defendant for an extension of time (see CPL 255.20 [3]…). People v Enright, 2014 NY Slip Op 07850, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

Relationship Between the “Open Repudiation [of Fiduciary Obligations] Rule” and the Laches Defense Explained/Allegations that Investments Made by the Fiduciary Underperformed Does Not State a Cause of Action for Breach of the Fiduciary Duty

In reversing Surrogate’s Court’s dismissal of objections to the fiduciary’s final accounting based on the laches defense, the Fourth Department explained the “open repudiation rule” and its relationship to laches.  To take advantage of the laches defense, the fiduciary must have openly repudiated his or her obligation or there must have been a judicial settlement of the fiduciary’s account, niether of which took place here.  The Fourth Department reached the same result as did Surrogate’s Court by concluding, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), that the numerous specific objections failed to state any cause of action against the fiduciary.  With respect to the “open repudiation rule” and the “underperforming investments” allegations, the court wrote:

… [T]he open repudiation rule applies to the defense of laches … . As the Court of Appeals stated in Barabash, “[a] fiduciary is not entitled to rely upon the laches of his beneficiary as a defense, unless he repudiates the relation to the knowledge of the beneficiary” … . Moreover, the open repudiation rule “requires proof of a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiaries” … . * * * Inasmuch as petitioner’s repudiation of its role of fiduciary was a prerequisite to its assertion of the defense of laches, and because no such repudiation occurred, we conclude that the Surrogate erred in permitting petitioner to assert that defense and in dismissing the objections on the ground that the objections were barred thereby. * * *

The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are ” the existence of a fiduciary duty, misconduct by the [fiduciary] and damages that were directly caused by the [fiduciary’s] misconduct’ ” … . * * *

We reject objectants’ contention that they stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by filing an objection to petitioner’s refusal to consider investment in nonproprietary funds. Objectants correctly concede that the Prudent Investor Act permits petitioner to invest trust assets in proprietary funds (see EPTL 11-2.3 [d]). The Prudent Investor Act also requires a trustee such as petitioner with “special investment skills” to “exercise such diligence in investing and managing assets as would customarily be exercised by prudent investors of discretion and intelligence having special investment skills” (EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [6]). Even under this standard, however, ” it is not sufficient that hindsight might suggest that another course would have been more beneficial; nor does a mere error of investment judgment mandate a surcharge’ ” … . Thus, it is well settled that ” a fiduciary’s conduct is not judged strictly by the success or failure of the investment . . . In short, the test is prudence, not performance, and therefore evidence of losses following the investment decision does not, by itself, establish imprudence’ ” … . Here, objectants merely alleged that the proprietary funds were underperforming, which is insufficient to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty … . Matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 07799, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same Prosecutor

In reversing defendant’s conviction for the second time (after the retrial) because of the same prosecutor’s misconduct, the Fourth Department also concluded there was insufficient evidence of the value of stolen items (cost of items when purchased not enough)) and there was insufficient evidence of possession of a controlled substance (statement that cocaine was smoked by the defendant on a particular day not enough). With respect to the prosecutorial misconduct, the court wrote:

Despite our prior admonition on defendant’s first appeal, the prosecutor on retrial repeated some of the improper comments from the first summation and made additional comments that we conclude are improper.  The prosecutor improperly denigrated the defense and defense counsel, repeatedly characterizing the defense as “noise,” “nonsense” and a “distraction[],” and arguing that defense counsel was fabricating facts and attempting to mislead the jury .. .  In one of the more troubling passages in her summation, the prosecutor stated, “You are here for the People of the State of New York versus [defendant] . . . It is not about who isn’t sitting at the defense table, it is about who is.  Are you buying it? Because that’s what they’re selling.  Theories disguised as arguments and posturing as evidence.  And I’m not suggesting the defendant has the burden of proving anything because the burden rests with the People, but by the same token, it doesn’t give counsel license to make stuff up and pretend that it’s evidence.  They all have something in common.  These theories, they’re noise, they’re nonsense.  They want you to be distracted.  Do not be distracted.”

In addition, the prosecutor misstated the evidence and the law…, made an inappropriate “guilt by association” argument …, and improperly characterized the case as “about finding the truth and it is as simple as that” … .  Perhaps the prosecutor’s most egregious misconduct occurred when she made herself an unsworn witness and injected the integrity of the District Attorney’s office into the case … .  With respect to a chief prosecution witness, who did not testify at the first trial and who turned herself in on a warrant the day prior to her testimony, the prosecutor stated:  “When she arrived at our offices, she was escorted over to Buffalo City Court because she had a warrant, because that’s what you have to do, and she was released on her own recognizance by the judge.  And let me be very clear here when we talk about promises to witnesses or benefits that they received.  Let me be very clear. Neither myself, nor [the other prosecuting attorney], nor anyone from our office, ever promised her anything in exchange for her testimony” … .  The Court of Appeals condemned similar comments by the prosecutor… . People v Morgan, 942, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Parole Officer Was Not Acting “Merely as a Conduit” for the Police In Conducting a Search—The Search Was Related to the Parole Officer’s Duties

In rejecting the defendant’s argument that the search by his parole officer was illegal because the search was not related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties, the Fourth Department explained the relevant law:

A parolee’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated if a parole officer’s search of the parolee’s person or property “is rationally and reasonably related to the performance of his duty as a parole officer” … . A parole officer’s search is unlawful, however, when the parole officer is “merely a conduit’ for doing what the police could not do otherwise” … . Stated differently, “a parolee’s status ought not to be exploited to allow a search which is designed solely to collect contraband or evidence in aid of the prosecution of an independent criminal investigation” … .

Here, defendant’s contention that the parole officer was acting as an agent of the DEA is undermined by the uncontroverted testimony of the parole officer that she was informed by a DEA agent prior to the search that the federal prosecutor “will most likely not want to get involved” in the case if an arrest were made, and by the fact that no federal charges were ever lodged against defendant. Rather, the parole officer testified that she conducted the search because she received credible information from law enforcement sources that defendant possessed a large quantity of cocaine in his apartment, which violated his parole conditions, and the court found her testimony in that regard to be credible. We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the search was rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties, and that suppression was therefore not warranted … . People v Escalera, 2014 NY Slip Op 06700, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not repair, and therefore his injury from a fall from a ladder was not covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Addressing … the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, we conclude that plaintiff was not “repairing” the corrosion chamber at the time he was injured, and thus that he was not engaged in a protected activity under section 240 (1). Rather, defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff was involved in “routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context” … . The court therefore properly granted that part of defendants’ motion with respect to that cause of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion. Neither the corrosion chamber nor the components of the “drainage system,” i.e., the floor drain and plastic piping, were in need of “repair.” Rather, the drain was clogged, at least in part as a result of the normal operation of the chamber. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the clog consisted of “paper and what looked to be like pieces of wooden dowel from like Q-tips that they use,” i.e., parts of samples that had been placed in the chamber on prior occasions, as well as an unknown substance. Although plaintiff and his supervisor testified that dirty conditions in the chamber could potentially compromise test results, there is no evidence that the chamber was ” inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work’ ” … . Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff had to use specialized tools or any tools at all to take apart the plastic piping. Indeed, defendants’ expert averred that the PVC piping had no mechanical fasteners and was “merely a friction fit, therefore, it would be a routine task to remove.” Plaintiff then used an air hose, metal wire, and a water hose to remove the clog, all of which were readily accessible to and used by him in the course of his employment. Leathers v Zaepfel Dev Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06691, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

, ,

Hearing Ordered to Reconstruct Contents of Missing Recording of 911 Call

The Fourth Department would not reverse defendant’s conviction due to the post-trial loss of the recording of a 911 call, the contents of which were important on appeal.  Instead, the court ordered a reconstruction hearing to create a record of the contents of the call.  People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06710, 10-3-14

 

Labor Law 200 Cause of Action Requires Supervisory Control Over How Plaintiff Carries Out the Injury-Producing Work

The Fourth Department, in affirming the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action, explained the operative criteria:

Labor Law § 200 codifies “the common-law duty of a landowner to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work” … , and it therefore encompasses the duty underlying plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. A precondition to the duty under Labor Law § 200 ” is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury’ ” … . Thus, liability under Labor Law § 200 cannot be imposed on a defendant if “there is no evidence that [the] defendant exercised supervisory control or had any input into how” the plaintiff carried out the injury-producing work … .

Here, all three moving defendants met their initial burdens of establishing as a matter of law that they did not have supervisory control over plaintiff’s work and did not have input into how he performed his work. Jones v County of Erie, 2014 NY Slip Op 06726, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

Question Posed by the Prosecutor to Prospective Black Jurors About Whether They Felt Police Officers Unfairly Target Members of the Minority Community Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for excluding black jurors was not race-neutral.  The prosecutor asked the jurors whether they felt that police officers unfairly target members of the minority community:

Pursuant to Batson and its progeny, “the party claiming discriminatory use of peremptories must first make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more [prospective] jurors for an impermissible reason . . . Once a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the nonmovant must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for each challenged peremptory—–step two … The third step of the Batson inquiry requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all of the facts and circumstances presented” … . * * *

With respect to step two of the analysis, we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of setting forth a “race-neutral reason” for striking the challenged prospective jurors … . “A race-neutral reason naturally means an explanation based on something other than the race of the [prospective] juror’ ” …, and must be “related to the particular case to be tried” … . Although the burden on the nonmoving party at this stage of the analysis is relatively minimal, “[a] prosecutor’s explanation may not be sustained where discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation” … .

Here, the People excluded the two prospective jurors at issue solely based upon their answers to a race-based question, i.e., whether they believed that police officers “unfairly target members of the minority community” … . Notably, that question was unrelated to the facts of this case, which does not involve any allegation of racial profiling . We are unpersuaded by the People’s assertion that the question was “designed to ensure that the jurors would not automatically accept or reject police testimony.”  People v Mallory, 2014 NY Slip Op 06728, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

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