You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

The defendant driver of a payloader struck a school bus and a personal injury action was brought by plaintiff, a school aide who was on the bus.  The Fourth Department determined defendants’ late motion to amend the answer should not have been granted, the striking of an affirmative defense based upon brake failure was properly struck because the original brakes had been replaced (spoliation), defendant-driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1143 established negligence as a matter of law, and the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion [to amend the answer], and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The motion was made seven months after plaintiff had filed the note of issue and more than two years after she commenced the action, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion … . We further conclude that preclusion of the affirmative defenses based on brake failure is warranted as a sanction for spoliation … . After the accident, Cerrone replaced the payloader’s allegedly defective brake calipers and discarded the old calipers. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 provides that “[t]he driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.” Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that ” the sole proximate cause of the accident was [Freeman]’s failure to yield the right of way’ ” to the school bus in violation of section 1143 … . At the time of the accident, the school bus was lawfully stopped on a public roadway, and the payloader collided with the school bus after entering the roadway from a parking lot … . In opposition to the motion, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . * * *

…T]he court erred in dismissing their affirmative defense of plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and we therefore further modify the order by reinstating that affirmative defense. CPLR 1411 provides that, “[i]n any action to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . , including contributory negligence . . . , shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” The statute encompasses any culpable conduct that had a “substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery is sought” … . Here, as the court found, there is no question that the sole proximate cause of the accident was defendants’ negligence. Defendants contend, however, that the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the accident were caused, in whole or in part, by her position on the bus, i.e., the fact that she was kneeling or standing on the bus rather than sitting in a seat, and they submitted an expert affirmation to that effect … . Simoneit v Mark Cerrone Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07783, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent Light-Duty Assignment

The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s employer, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO), was not required to accommodate the petitioner, who has epilepsy, with permanent light duty employment:

“Pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (3) (b), employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, provided that the accommodations do not impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable accommodation is defined in relevant part as an action that permits an employee with a disability to perform his or her job activities in a reasonable manner” (… see § 292 [21-e]). “In reviewing the determAdd Newination of SDHR’s Commissioner, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner . . . , and we must confirm the determination so long as it is based on substantial evidence’ ” … .

Petitioner, a deputy sheriff assigned to the position of “inmate escort” at ECSO’s correctional facility, does not dispute that her epilepsy does not permit her to be assigned to duties involving direct inmate contact, i.e., duties that require uninterrupted vigilance and emergency response capability … . Thus, petitioner also does not dispute that she cannot perform the essential functions of an “inmate escort” without presenting a direct threat to her own safety and others in the workplace (see 42 USC § 12113 [b]…). In order to accommodate her disability, however, petitioner ultimately requested assignment to a light-duty position. It is well settled that an employer is neither required to create a new light-duty position to accommodate a disability (see 9 NYCRR 466.11 [f] [6]…), nor to assign an employee with more than a temporary disability to a position in a light-duty program designed to accommodate only temporary disabilities … . The fact that an employer has been lax in enforcing the temporary nature of its light-duty policy does not convert the policy into a permanent one … . Although ECSO maintained a “light-duty” program (Policy # 03-01-07, Light Duty Assignments), the purpose of that program is to assist employees with temporary disabilities by modifying work assignments and duties or arranging for a temporary transfer to a “Transitional Duty Assignment (TDA)” until the employee is medically released to resume regular duties. The express intent of ECSO’s “policy is not to create a permanent Transitional Duty Assignment, nor is [the policy] to be used in cases where an employee cannot perform the essential functions of a job with reasonable accommodation.” Petitioner’s epilepsy seizure disorder was described by her own treating physician as “long-term.” Thus, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb SDHR’s (State Division of Human Rights’) determination that petitioner’s disability was of a permanent nature and that ECSO had no permanent light-duty police assignments available. Matter of Coles v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07788, 4th Dept 11-14-14

Similar issue and result in Matter of County of Erie v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07829, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Complaint Did Not State Causes of Action for Replevin or Conversion Because the Specific Funds Involved Were Not Sufficiently Identified/Fraud Cause of Action Stated—Inference of Fraud Sufficiently Raised from Circumstances Alleged

The Fourth Department determined the complaint did not state causes of action for replevin and conversion, but did state a cause of action for fraud.  The motions to dismiss the replevin and conversion causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) should therefore have been granted.  The basis of the complaint was the allegation that defendants embezzled as much as $4 million from an incapacitated person (Aida Corey):

Addressing first the replevin cause of action, we note that replevin is a remedy employed to recover a specific, identifiable item of personal property …, and “[o]rdinary currency, as a rule, is not subject to replevin” … . Unless the currency can be specifically identified, i.e., it consists of specific, identifiable bills or coins, replevin does not lie … . Here, the amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants “have used some or all of Aida Corey’s $4 million in cas[h] to purchase real and personal property and other tangible assets” and that they “have taken approximately $4 million of Aida Corey’s cash and/or personal property.” The sole focus of the parties, both in Supreme Court and on appeal, however, has been on the money allegedly taken by the … defendants, and we therefore deem abandoned any allegations by plaintiffs concerning personal property … . We thus conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for replevin, because there is no “specifically identified” money that plaintiffs seek to recover … .

With respect to the plaintiff guardians’ cause of action for conversion, the amended complaint likewise alleges that the individual defendants “have taken approximately $4 million of Aida Corey’s cash and/or personal property,” but as with the replevin cause of action we conclude that plaintiffs have abandoned any allegations concerning personal property … . Money may be the subject of a cause of action for conversion only if “it can be identified and segregated as a chattel can be” …, i.e., “where there is a specific, identifiable fund” … . Contrary to the contentions of plaintiff guardians, the sums allegedly converted here do not constitute the type of specific, identifiable fund that would support a conversion cause of action … .

…[T]he court properly refused to dismiss the fraud cause of action against them. A fraud cause of action must allege that the defendant: (1) made a representation to a material fact; (2) the representation was false; (3) the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff believed and justifiably relied on the statement and in accordance with the statement engaged in a certain course of conduct; and (5) as a result of the reliance, the plaintiff sustained damages … . The allegations in the complaint must set forth the “basic facts constituting the fraud” …, to “inform a defendant of the complained-of incidents” … . The Court of Appeals has “cautioned that [CPLR] 3016 (b) should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting the fraud” (Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 491 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, much of the detail surrounding the alleged fraud is ” peculiarly within the knowledge’ ” of the … defendants …, and we agree with plaintiffs that an inference of fraud arises from the circumstances alleged in the amended complaint … . Heckl v Walsh, 2014 NY Slip Op 07787, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Failure to Bring Timely Article 78 Proceedings to Contest Town Planning Board Decisions Approving Construction of a Condominium Cannot Be Circumvented by Bringing an Action for a Declaratory Judgment

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding contesting the determination(s) of a town planning board cannot be circumvented by bringing an action for a declaratory judgment.  The dispute concerned whether “substantial work” had been commenced on a condominium construction project such that the approval of the project did not terminate automatically due to the passage of time. The planning board had concluded that “substantial work” included efforts to finance the project and was not limited to physical construction:

We reject plaintiff’s contention that the action was timely and properly brought as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 3001. Although a six-year limitations period governs declaratory judgment actions (see CPLR 213 [1]), it is well settled that if such claim could have been brought in another form, then the shorter limitations period applies … . Here, Town Law § 274-a (11) provides for a 30-day limitations period for challenging “a decision of the [planning] board or any officer, department, board or bureau of the town” under CPLR article 78. Thus, plaintiff’s challenge to the Town Code Enforcement Officer’s determination of the meaning of “significant work” under Code § 170-94 (J) could have been brought in a CPLR article 78 proceeding under Town Law § 274-a (11). Assuming arguendo, as plaintiff contends, that no administrative appeal from such determination was required or available, the action was not commenced within the 30-day limitations period set forth in section 274-a (11), and the court therefore properly granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on that ground … . Likewise, any challenge to the 2005, 2009 or 2012 Planning Board’s actions could have been brought in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and thus the instant action, even though denominated as one for a declaratory judgment, also was not timely commenced within the 30-day limitations period applicable to each such action of the Planning Board (see Town Law § 274-a [11]; see also Town Law §§ 267-c [1]; 282).

We reject plaintiff’s further contention that, with respect to the Town Code Enforcement Officer’s determination, there was no administrative action and thus “nothing to appeal.” Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Code § 170-92 (B) specifically provides for an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order or decision made by an administrative officer or body in the enforcement of the Code … . Thus, plaintiff failed to pursue the available administrative appeal …, and the 30-day period of limitations applicable to judicial review therefrom cannot be circumvented by “the simple expedient of denominating the action one for declaratory relief” … . Bristol Homeowners Envtl Preserv Assoc LLC v Town of Bristol, 2014 NY Slip Op 07790, 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

 

, ,

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

 

,

Suppressed Statement Improperly Allowed to Be Used to Impeach Defendant—Defendant Did Not Open the Door for Use of the Statement by Contradicting It On Direct

The Fourth Department determined statements made by the defendant, which had been suppressed, were improperly admitted to impeach the defendant (harmless error however):

…Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach him with the statement that he made to State University police officers. That statement had been suppressed, and defendant did not open the door to its use for impeachment by giving testimony contrary to the statement during his direct examination… . People v Blair, 2014 NY Slip Op 06730, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

,

“Door-Opening Rule” Applied to Allow Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence/Jury-Note Error Not Preserved

The Fourth Department determined evidence of a phone conversation which was otherwise inadmissible was properly admitted to rebut a “misleading impression” created by the defendant under the “door-opening rule.”  In addition the court held that the failure to notify defense counsel of the contents of a jury note, although error, was not preserved for appeal:

Under the “door-opening” rule …, otherwise inadmissible evidence, such as the telephone conversation at issue here, may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of rebutting a “misleading impression” created by the defendant … . Here, defendant was attempting to evoke the jury’s sympathy by testifying about her remorse and anguish over the victim’s death. Specifically, defendant testified that, upon learning of the victim’s death, she “started flipping out,” “bouncing my head off walls,” “screaming,” and “going nuts.” She further testified that she “didn’t want to live,” “refused to eat,” and was “on suicide watch.” We conclude that the court properly permitted the People to introduce the telephone conversation in evidence to rebut defendant’s testimony of remorse and anguish … . * * *

Defendant contends in the supplemental brief submitted by appellate counsel with leave of this Court that the court failed to apprise her of a jury note and that such a failure constitutes a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal of the judgment, even if unpreserved … . We reject defendant’s contention that preservation was not required. Here … “the record does not indicate that the court gave defense counsel notice of the contents of the note outside the presence of the jury, but it establishes that the court read the note verbatim before the jury, defense counsel, and defendant. Defense counsel raised no objection” … . Under such circumstances, defendant was required to preserve the alleged error by objection … . We decline to exercise our power to address defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Stoutenger, 2014 NY Slip Op 06688, 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