You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

A DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET SUBMITTED PAST THE 60-DAY DEADLINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the deposition errata sheet should have been struck because it was submitted after the 60-day period expired:

Supreme Court erred in denying their joint motion to the extent that it seeks to strike plaintiff’s errata sheet inasmuch as the errata sheet was untimely (see CPLR 3116 [a]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. CPLR 3116 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o changes to the transcript may be made by the witness more than sixty days after submission to the witness for examination.” It is undisputed that plaintiff did not submit the errata sheet within 60 days of her deposition, and submitted it over a month after the 60-day period expired, in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s reasons for the lateness under the circumstances did not constitute a good cause for the delay (see CPLR 2004 …). We note that we did not consider the errata sheet when reviewing defendants’ contentions regarding their motions for summary judgment. Pagan v GPK, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02631, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A motion to strike a deposition errata sheet submitted past the 60-day deadline should be granted.

 

,

“GOOD CAUSE” FOR FILING A LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS, NOT IN THE REPLY PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s late summary judgment motion should not have been granted because the initial papers  did not demonstrate “good cause” for the late filing. The “good cause” allegations in defendant’s reply papers should not have been considered:

Defendant’s motion was … untimely … and, thus, defendant was required to demonstrate “good cause” for the untimeliness of the motion in its initial motion papers (CPLR 3212 [a] …). Indeed, “[i]t is well settled that it is improper for a court to consider the ‘good cause’ proffered by a movant if it is presented for the first time in reply papers” … . Inasmuch as it is undisputed here that defendant did not proffer any good cause for the delay in its initial motion papers, the court erred in considering the motion and should have denied it as untimely … . Worden v City of Utica, 2024 NY Slip Op 02628, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: If you make a late summary judgment motion, you must demonstrate “good cause” for being late in the initial motion papers. A “good cause” demonstration in the reply papers should not be considered by the judge.

 

, ,

THE SHOOTER, WHO WAS NEVER FOUND OR IDENTIFIED, WAS A PASSENGER IN A CAR DRIVEN BY DEFENDANT WHEN THE SHOOTER SHOT AT AND MISSED A PERSON SITTING IN A PARKED CAR; THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s attempted murder and assault convictions as against the weight of the evidence, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was no evidence defendant shared the shooter’s intent. It was alleged defendant was the driver when his passenger shot at and missed a person sitting in a parked car. The shooter was never identified. There was no evidence defendant knew the victim:

… [T]he question is whether defendant shared the shooter’s intent to kill or seriously injure the victim. Even assuming, arguendo, that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence … , we conclude that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence … . Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of those crimes as charged to the jury … and considering that “a defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, alone, is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability” … , here the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “shared the [shooter’s] intent to kill” or cause serious physical injury to the victim, or the intent to use the gun unlawfully against the victim … , particularly given the lack of evidence “that defendant knew that the [shooter] was armed at the time defendant transported him” … .

From the dissent:

Defendant drove the vehicle while the shooter fired several times at the parked vehicle in which the victim was sitting in the front passenger seat, and the victim heard someone say “yo” as soon as the gunshots started. The police found the parked vehicle’s driver’s side windows shattered and shell casings on the ground next to the vehicle. A permissible and eminently reasonable inference from the facts was that defendant stopped or slowed down the vehicle in order to allow the shooter to fire several shots at the parked vehicle … . In other words, defendant shared the shooter’s intent to use a gun to kill or cause serious physical injury to the victim and “intentionally aid[ed]” the shooter to engage in such conduct (Penal Law § 20.00). In addition, defendant fled from the scene after the gunshots were fired and collided with another vehicle. The driver of that vehicle testified that, when she asked defendant to exchange paperwork and information, he told her to “move the f*** out of the way,” before he pushed her vehicle with his vehicle and drove off again. People v Lathrop, 2024 NY Slip Op 02618, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here the appellate court found the evidence of attempted murder legally sufficient but the verdict against the weight of the evidence (a difficult concept).

 

DEFENDANT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF MISSED A STEP AND WAS THEREFORE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant in this ladder-fall case raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

We conclude that plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing that the ladder was “not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [him]” through evidence that plaintiff fell when the ladder suddenly and unexpectedly shifted … . The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of [his] accident”… . We conclude that defendant met that burden through evidence suggesting that plaintiff fell from the ladder because he missed a step while descending, not because the ladder shifted or otherwise failed … .

From the dissent:

… [E]ven if there was non-hearsay evidence that plaintiff mis-stepped and missed a rung while descending the ladder, defendant still does not raise a triable question of fact with respect to proximate cause. “It is well settled that [the] failure to properly secure a ladder to insure that it remains steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … and, here, defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s allegations that defendant failed to properly erect, secure or place the ladder to prevent it from shifting. Missing a rung while descending the ladder is not an act of “such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a cause sufficient to relieve [defendant] of liability” … . Krause v Industry Matrix, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02653, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here evidence plaintiff “missed a step’ raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall from a ladder.

 

, ,

FORMER AND CURRENT SECTION 413 OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW REQUIRES THE REPORTING OF ANY SUSPECTED INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY UPON A CHILD, WHICH INCLUDES SEXUAL ABUSE, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON SUSPECTED OF THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined former section 413 of Social Services Law, as the current section mandates, requires that all instances of suspected intentionally inflicted serious injury upon a child be reported, regardless of who is suspected of inflicting it. In other words, the suspected intentional infliction of serious injury upon a child must be reported, even if the person suspected of inflicting it is not a person legally responsible for the child. Despite this finding, the Fourth Department held that the cause of action based upon former section 413 should have been dismissed because the complaint does not allege the defendant town had received information that its employee, plaintiff’s youth baseball coach, was sexually assaulting plaintiff:

… [W]e conclude that Social Services Law former § 413 mandated, as the current version mandates, the reporting of every instance of suspected intentionally inflicted serious physical injury upon a child, regardless of who is suspected to have inflicted it, thereby triggering an investigation of the child’s parent or other legally responsible person—as a “subject of the report”—to determine whether, inter alia, that person inflicted or allowed the harm to be inflicted upon the child. “[T]he purpose of [the child protective services provisions under Social Services Law article 6, title 6, is] to encourage more complete reporting of suspected child abuse and maltreatment,” not less (Social Services Law § 411), and the former and current versions of sections 412 (2) (b) and 413 apply equally to children who have had a serious physical injury intentionally inflicted by, inter alia, a coach, a classroom teacher, a neighbor, another child or a distant relative who is not legally responsible for the child’s care.

From the dissent:

We write separately only to express our disagreement with the conclusion of the majority that … a mandated reporter is statutorily required to report any person who inflicted serious physical injury upon a child regardless of whether there is a parental or guardianship relationship, even where that same mandated reporter would not be required to report conduct constituting abuse. LG 70 Doe v Town of Amherst, 2024 NY Slip Op 02651, Fourth Deppt 5-10-24

Practice Point: Even where a person who is not legally responsible for the care of child is suspected of sexually abusing the child, the abuse must be reported pursuant to Social Services Law section 413.

 

, ,

PROOF OF THE VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s possession-of-stolen-property conviction, determined the value of the property was not established:

We agree with defendant that, with respect to his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under count 1 of the indictment, there is legally insufficient evidence establishing the value of the items seized from the storage unit. Although defendant did not preserve that issue for our review, we exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . “A person is guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree when [that person] knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit [that person] or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof, and when the value of the property exceeds three thousand dollars” … . It is well settled that “a victim must provide a basis of knowledge for [their] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value” … . “Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient” to establish the value of the property … . Although the People elicited some valuation testimony from the victims at trial, such testimony did not include the basis for the victims’ knowledge of the value of most of the items in the storage unit … . We conclude on this record that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the value of the property taken exceeded $3,000 … . The evidence is legally sufficient, however, to establish that defendant committed the lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see § 165.40). People v Hensley, 2024 NY Slip Op 02650, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: The basis for the victim’s knowledge of the value of the stolen property was not demonstrated; possession-of-stolen-property conviction reduced.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S VISITATION WITHOUT MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have suspended father’s visitation without making findings of fact:

The father … contends that the court failed to make any factual findings whatsoever to support the determination to suspend the father’s visitation with the child, and that the matter should be remitted to allow the court to make such findings. We agree. It is “well established that the court is obligated ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” … . Here, the court completely failed to follow that well-established rule when it failed to issue any factual findings to support its determination … , either with respect to whether there had been a change in circumstances … or the relevant factors that it considered in making a best interests of the child determination … . “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . We therefore reverse the amended order and remit the matter to Family Court to make a determination on the petition including specific findings as to a change in circumstances and the best interests of the child, following an additional hearing if necessary … . Matter of Miller v Boyden, 2024 NY Slip Op 02648, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have suspended father’s visitation without making findings of fact because appellate review is impossible; matter remitted.

 

,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT WHO PERFORMED THE SURGERY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ANOTHER SURGEON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action against the resident who performed the surgery (Kent) should have been dismissed because the resident was acting under the supervision of another surgeon (Doak):

With respect to the appeal by Kent and the Kaleida Health defendants, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their motion (Kaleida motion) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims against Kent because Kent did not exercise independent medical judgment during the surgery. It is well settled that a ” ‘resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene’ ” … , even where the resident ” ‘played an active role in [the plaintiff’s] procedure’ ” … . Kent and the Kaleida Health defendants met their burden on the Kaleida motion with respect to Kent by submitting evidence that plaintiff was Doak’s patient, Doak determined the surgery that was to be performed, and Doak directly supervised Kent during the facetectomy, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Van Hook v Doak, 2024 NY Slip Op 02641, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A resident who does not exercise independent medical judgment when performing surgery under the supervision of another surgeon cannot be sued for medical malpractice.

 

THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REJECTED SUPREME COURT’S RULING THAT THE ARBITRATOR “MANIFESTLY DISREGARDED SUBSTANTIVE LAW” AND THAT THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL,” EXPLAINING THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that none of Supreme Court’s grounds for vacating the arbitration award were valid. The arbitrator did not “manifestly disregard the substantive law.” The award was not “irrational.” The Fourth Department explained the criteria for both:

… [T]he court determined that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded “substantive law” applicable to the parties’ dispute when the arbitrator distinguished, rather than applied, two prior arbitration awards that petitioner and the court read as favorable to petitioner’s position on the timeliness issue. That was error. “The effect, if any, to be given to an earlier arbitration award in subsequent arbitration proceedings is a matter for determination in that forum” … . Neither petitioner nor the court identified any “substantive law applicable to the parties’ dispute” to support application of the doctrine of manifest disregard of law … . In any event, even if the two prior arbitration awards constituted substantive law, inasmuch as the record establishes that the arbitrator considered, but distinguished, those arbitration awards, we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrator “knew of a governing legal principle” that was “well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case” and “yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether … .* * *

“An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award” … . Where, however, “an arbitrator offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached, the arbitration award must be upheld” … .

Here, the arbitrator issued a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion and award in which he considered the terms of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement], the evidence adduced at the hearing, and prior arbitration awards, and we thus conclude that “[i]t cannot be said that the arbitrator’s procedural resolution of the issue concerning compliance with the contractual requirement that the demand for arbitration be made within a specified time . . . was irrational” … . Matter of Buffalo Teachers’ Fedn. (Board of Educ. of Buffalo City Sch. Dist.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02429, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: Read this decision to understand how limited the court’s role is when reviewing an arbitration award.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant that a fine was part of the sentence rendered the plea involuntary:

“[I]n order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court failed to advise defendant that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree must include a fine in an amount between $500 and $5,000 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b] [i]). People v Carmichael, 2024 NY Slip Op 02427, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to inform the defendant that a fine is part of the sentence renders the guilty plea involuntary.

 

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