You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

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

 

, ,

School Not Liable for Injury to Student Crossing Street to Enter School–Student Was Not In the Custody or Control of the School When He Was Injured

The Fourth Department determined that plaintiff’s son was not yet in the custody or control of the school when he was injured. Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore required.  Plaintiff had dropped her son off across the street from the school, and told him to stay there while she directed cars to a parking area for an upcoming lacrosse game (in which plaintiff’s son was to participate). A teammate told the plaintiff’s son to go to the school to check in with the coach.  He was injured crossing the street:

…[I]t is well settled that “[t]he duty of a school district to its students is strictly limited by time and space and exists only so long as a student is in its care and custody” … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendants owed plaintiff’s son a duty of care under the circumstances here. When plaintiff dropped off her son and told him to “stay there,” she made a parental decision to keep her son across the street because she was concerned about him “crossing over” given that there was “lots of traffic” in the intersection where the accident occurred. Thus, plaintiff had not relinquished control of her son, and defendants had not yet gained the physical custody or control of him that is a prerequisite to imposing a legal duty on them … . The fact that plaintiff’s son disobeyed plaintiff’s directive and crossed the street does not change that legal result.

We reject plaintiff’s further contention that defendants owed plaintiff’s son a duty because the defendants placed plaintiff’s son in a “for[e]seeably dangerous setting that the [defendants] had a hand in creating.” Because the child was never in the physical custody or control of the defendants, however, the defendants were “never in a position to . . . release [plaintiff’s son] into a hazardous setting … . Ritchie v Churchville-Chili Cent School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07792, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Inadvertently Disseminated Investigative Report [Concerning a Doctor’s Conduct With Respect to Plaintiff’s Decedent] Generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct Is Not Discoverable—Matter Must Be Returned to the “Status Quo Prior to the [Inadvertent] Disclosure”

In a wrongful death action, the Fourth Department determined that a report generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) concerning an investigation into decedent’s death was not discoverable pursant to the Public Health Law and a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 should have been granted in its entirety. The report was inadvertently disclosed by the plaintiff to all the defendants.  Supreme Court ruled only that the report could not be further disseminated.  The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court’s order was appealable pursuant to CPLR 5701(a)(20(v) even though the denial of the motion for a protective order was without prejudice to renew:

…[W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion only in part, and should have granted the motion in its entirety. “Pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (a) (v), the files of OPMC concerning possible instances of professional misconduct are confidential, subject to [certain] exceptions,” including Public Health Law § 230 (9), which are not applicable here … . Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that the OPMC proceeded past the interview phase of [the doctor’s] alleged misconduct with respect to decedent, the OPMC report is not discoverable as a matter of law (see § 230 [10] [a] [v]). Thus, we conclude that the court erred in failing to restore this matter to the “status quo prior to the[inadvertent] disclosure”… . Kirby v Kenmore Mercy Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07804, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

Under the Facts, the Failure to Call a Witness Requested by the Inmate Was a Regulatory, Not a Constitutional, Violation—New Hearing Ordered

The Fourth Department noted that where a good faith reason for not calling a witness requested by the inmate appears on the record, the error is regulatory, not constitutional, in nature and a new hearing, not expungement, is required:

…[T]he Hearing Officer violated petitioner’s right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations (see 7 NYCRR 254.5…). Although petitioner seeks expungement, he is not entitled to that relief at this juncture. Where, as here, “a good faith reason for the denial appears on the record, this amounts to a regulatory violation” rather than a violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights, “requiring that the matter be remitted for a new hearing” … . Matter of Johnson v Prack, 2014 NY Slip Op 07859, 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