You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

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

 

Injury Caused by Movement and Toppling of a Dry Wall Cart Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

The Fourth Department determined an injury related to the toppling of a cart carrying drywall was not covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was standing on the ground, the drywall on the cart was not being hoisted or secured, and the cart was not being hoisted or otherwise moved vertically … . We conclude that plaintiff’s injuries were not the direct consequence of a failure to provide blocks or stays to protect against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential; here, the function of such devices would not have been to protect plaintiff from the effects of gravity … . In our view, defendants established as a matter of law “that the injuries resulted from a general hazard encountered at a construction site and were not the direct consequence of a failure to provide’ an adequate device of the sort enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . Miles v Buffalo State Alumni Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06732, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

,

Right to Counsel Did Not Attach When Community Activist Told Police Defendant’s Attorney Was On His Way to the Station

The Fourth Department determined that the right to counsel attaches only when the defendant or his attorney invokes it, not when someone informs the police defendant’s attorney is on his way to the station:

We reject defendant’s contention that his right to counsel indelibly attached when the community activist told the arresting police officers at the television station that defendant had an attorney who was on his way. “It is well settled that the right to counsel is personal’ to the accused… and thus cannot be invoked by a third party on behalf of an adult defendant” … . Thus, where, as here, a third party not affiliated with a lawyer or law firm indicates that defendant may have an attorney, “it would be unreasonable to require the police to cease a criminal investigation and begin a separate inquiry to verify whether the defendant is actually represented by counsel. Direct communication by an attorney or a professional associate of the attorney to the police assures that the suspect has actually retained a lawyer in the matter at issue’ ” … . Absent such direct communication, the police herein had no duty to investigate whether defendant was represented by counsel, and defendant’s right to counsel did not indelibly attach until an attorney later called the police directly. Inasmuch as all questioning ceased at that time, we conclude that the court properly refused to suppress the statements defendant made before that time.  People v McCray, 2014 NY Slip Op 06720, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

,

Out-of-Court Statements by Defendant and Unknown Woman with Whom Defendant Spoke on the Phone from Jail Admissible

The Fourth Department determined that out-of-court statements made by the defendant in phone calls from jail and a statement made by an unknown woman defendant was talking to were admissible because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the recordings of two telephone calls he made from jail following his arrest. During the first call, defendant said to an unknown female, “Tell him [defendant’s father] what happened to my ID.” Defendant was referring to his claim that his jacket, containing his parole identification card, had been stolen from his father’s car. During the second call, an unknown female informed defendant that his father told the police that his car had not been running for “a long-ass time,” and in response defendant instructed the female to tell his father “not to mention” that the car was not running. We reject defendant’s contention that his own above-referenced statements constitute inadmissible hearsay. The statements in question were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted …; instead, they were offered to show that defendant appeared to be fashioning an innocent explanation for the fact that his parole identification card was found at the crime scene. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the statement made by the unknown female during the second call constituted inadmissible hearsay. In any event, that statement was admissible to put defendant’s responding statement into context by providing “necessary background information to the jury” … . People v Scarver, 2014 NY Slip Op 06713, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

, ,

Plaintiffs Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 USC 1988—Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and found that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 USC 1988.

Plaintiffs had brought an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding alleging that they had been improperly removed by the city from an approved list of certified lead inspectors. The plaintiffs prevailed and were returned to the list.  Although the Article 78/declaratory judgment determination was made on state grounds, a federal “denial of due process” claim had also been made.  The Fourth Department explained the criteria for the award of attorney’s fees in this context:

The governing statute, 42 USC § 1988 (b), provides that, “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . .” “Although some courts have held, as did the court in this case, that the decision whether to grant an award is entirely discretionary . . . this is incorrect . . . [T]he prevailing party ordinarily should recover reasonable fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust’ ” … . Where, as here, “relief is sought on both State and Federal grounds, but nevertheless awarded on State grounds only,” attorney’s fees may be awarded if a constitutional question is involved and such question is “substantial and arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts as the State claim” … . “The threshold for establishing substantiality of a Federal claim is minimal: the claim must not be wholly insubstantial,’ obviously frivolous’ or obviously without merit’ “… . Cerberus Props LLC v Kirkmire, 2014 NY Slip Op 06723, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

Conviction on a Lesser Inclusory Count Can Not Stand Even In the Absence of Preservation

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree could not stand because that charge was a lesser inclusory count of another count of which the defendant was convicted (criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree):

Although defendant failed to preserve this contention for our review, the People … correctly concede that “we may review the issue as a matter of law despite defendant’s failure to raise it in the trial court” … . People v Roberts, 2014 NY Slip Op 06707, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

, ,

Monetary Sanction Against Plaintiff’s Attorney and Striking of Complaint Deemed Appropriate Where Discovery Delays Unexplained

The Fourth Department determined a $2090.00 sanction against plaintiff’s attorney and the striking of the complaint in a slip and fall case were appropriate based upon plaintiff’s discovery delays:

…[W]e conclude that, under the circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on plaintiff’s attorney for what the court characterized as “excessive and inexcusable delay” in providing discovery responses … . …[W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that the court applied an incorrect legal standard in striking the complaint and dismissing [the action]. “[T]he type and degree of sanction [for a discovery violation] will be left to the discretionary authority of the trial court which will remain undisturbed absent an abuse thereof” … . “While the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of [the court’s] discretion . . . , striking a pleading is appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” … . Here, the court properly determined that defendant met its initial burden of establishing willful, contumacious or bad faith conduct by plaintiff, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to offer a reasonable excuse … . Allen v Wal-mart Stores Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06695, 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