You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Count Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Evidence Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined one count of an indictment had been rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence.  The indictment charged the theft of a bicycle.  However the trial evidence alleged the theft of two bicycles.  Therefore it is possible the jury was not unanimous in determining a specific bicycle had been stolen:

Because defendant’s right to be tried and convicted of only those crimes charged in the indictment is fundamental and nonwaivable” …, we review defendant’s contention despite his failure to preserve it. CPL 200.30 (1) provides that “[e]ach count of an indictment may charge one offense only.” Count five of the indictment charged defendant with stealing a bicycle and thus was not facially defective. At trial, however, the evidence established that two bicycles were stolen. Consequently, ” [r]eversal is required because the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted [petit larceny], resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges’ . . . , as well as the danger that . . . different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts’ “… . People v Wade, 2014 NY Slip Op 04587, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

Rebuttal Witness Properly Called by the People to Show Possible Bias of Defense Witness

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, determined that a rebuttal witness called by the People was properly allowed to testify to demonstrate the bias of a defense witness.  The explanation about the relevance of the rebuttal testimony is fact-specific.  The dissenters did not see the rebuttal testimony as relevant to the defense witness’ bias and did not agree that the “bias” rationale for the rebuttal was actually raised in the trial court:

…[T]he rebuttal witness was properly called to give testimony that was relevant to the defense witness’s bias or motive to fabricate, which is not collateral … . The defense witness was defendant’s former girlfriend, and the rebuttal witness was defendant’s ex-wife, who married defendant after he and the defense witness ended their romantic relationship. In her cross-examination of the defense witness, the prosecutor attempted to show that defendant and the defense witness were romantically involved at the time of the trial, but the defense witness would admit only that she and defendant were friends, and claimed that she and defendant had been friends “all along,” i.e., they were friends even when defendant and the rebuttal witness were married. The prosecutor informed the court that she wanted to call the rebuttal witness to rebut the defense witness’s testimony that she and defendant were “friends this entire time.” We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the rebuttal witness should not have been allowed to testify. Reading the prosecutor’s colloquy with the court on this issue, together with her cross-examination of the defense witness, we conclude that the purpose of calling the rebuttal witness was to show that defendant and the defense witness were romantically involved at the time of the trial, which the prosecutor believed could be inferred if the defense witness and defendant had not been friends when he was married to the rebuttal witness.

We also disagree with our dissenting colleagues that our affirmance of the trial court’s ruling violates People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192). The Court of Appeals has ” construed CPL 470.15 (1) as a legislative restriction on the Appellate Division’s power to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court’ ” (id. at 195). Contrary to the position of the dissent, we are not affirming on a ground that is different from that determined by the court. The court allowed the rebuttal witness to testify for the “limited purpose” of whether the defense witness and defendant were friends, and we conclude that the court’s determination was proper. We simply differ from the dissent in our interpretation of the meaning of the rebuttal witness’s testimony tending to show that the defense witness and defendant were not friends after defendant married the rebuttal witness.  People v Nicholson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04611, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

Defendant’s Temporary Possession of a Weapon Was “Innocent”

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s half-brother handed her the weapon just before he became involved in an altercation.  The court determined defendant’s possession of the weapon was “innocent:”

“Under our law, in certain circumstances, the possession of a weapon may be innocent and not criminal. Innocent possession of a weapon is possession that is temporary and not for an unlawful purpose” … . “This defense of temporary and lawful’ possession applies because as a matter of policy the conduct is not deemed criminal” … . Furthermore, a “defendant is not required to prove that h[er] possession of the weapon was innocent. Rather, the People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant knowingly possessed the weapon and that such possession was not innocent” … . For this defense to be considered by the trier of fact, “there must be proof in the record showing a legal excuse for having the weapon in [one’s] possession as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession [was] obtained, the weapon [was] not used in a dangerous manner” … . People v Holes, 2014 NY Slip Op 04643, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

In Absence of a “Special Relationship” Insurer Not Liable for Agent’s Negligent Misrepresentation

The Fourth Department determined the insurance carrier was entitled to summary judgment because it did not have a “special relationship” with the insured.  Plaintiff’s insurance had been cancelled for lack of payment.  After a loss, the plaintiff sued the insurer alleged that he had relied on the agent’s representation that his insurance premium had been paid.  Absent a “special relationship” suit can not be premised on such reliance:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the gravamen of which is a claim for negligent misrepresentation. An essential element of such a claim is the “duty to use reasonable care to impart correct information due to a special relationship between the parties” … . A special relationship may arise from “a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on” … . According to plaintiff, he had a special relationship with defendant based on a course of dealing. We conclude that defendant met its burden on the motion, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of a special relationship … . The interactions between plaintiff and defendant on which plaintiff relies ” would [not] have put [an] objectively reasonable insurance agent[] on notice that [his or her advice] was being sought and specially relied on’ ” … , such that a special relationship was formed based on a course of conduct. Defendant therefore cannot be held liable for negligent misrepresentation based on its agent’s response to an inquiry from plaintiff concerning whether his policy premium had been paid. In view of our determination, we do not consider defendant’s remaining contentions. Majtan v Urbanke Assoc Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04631, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

State’s Placement of a Stop Sign and the Resulting Difficulty in Seeing Oncoming Traffic was a Concurrent Cause of the Accident which Was Not Superseded by the Negligence of the Drivers

The Fourth Department determined the state was properly held partially liable for an accident at an intersection.  Plaintiff was a passenger in a car (driven by Kiczewski) which, after stopping, entered an intersection where it was struck by a truck (driven by Martin) with the right of way.  Plaintiff alleged the placement of the stop sign (by the state) made it difficult to see oncoming traffic:

We reject the State’s contention that claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that its negligence was a proximate cause of claimant’s injuries. “In order to prevail at trial in a negligence case, a [claimant] . . . is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred” …. . Here, based on our review of the record, we conclude that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court’s determination that the State’s failure to remedy a known dangerous condition at the intersection was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident … .

Although it is true, as the State contends, that the accident was caused primarily by the negligence of Kiczewski, who failed to yield the right-of-way to the truck, it is well settled that there may be more than one proximate cause of the accident …, and it cannot be said on this record that Kiczewski’s negligence, or that of Martin, was a superseding cause of the accident that severed any causal connection between claimant’s injuries and the State’s negligence … . Because claimants proved that the State’s negligence “increased the likelihood of an accident,” we conclude that the court properly determined that the State’s negligence was a “concurring cause” of the accident … . Przesiek v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 04327, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Land Owned by Power Company Which Does Not Now Produce Sewage and Garbage Properly Subject to Ad Valorem Taxes for Sewage and Garbage

The Fourth Department determined land owned by a power company was properly subject to ad valorem taxes for sewer and garbage because it was possible the land, at some point, could be used in a way that would generate sewage and garbage:

The test for determining whether real properties are benefitted, thus warranting special district assessment, is whether the properties are capable of receiving the service funded by the special ad valorem levy’ ” … . “An ad valorem tax will not be deemed invalid unless the taxpayer’s benefit received from the imposition of the tax is reduced to the point where it is, in effect, nonexistent” … .

Here, ” there is a sufficient theoretical potential of the properties to be developed in a manner that will result in the generation of garbage [and sewage]’ ” … . Unlike the plaintiff in Long Is. Water Corp. v Supervisor of Town of Hempstead (77 AD3d 795, lv denied 16 NY3d 711), plaintiff herein owns the land on which its “mass” properties sit, and we conclude that it is theoretically possible that such land, if put to a different use, could generate garbage and sewage. Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp v Town of Marcy Assessor, 2014 NY Slip Op 04312, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Internally Inconsistent Verdict Properly Set Aside

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.  The jury had found that plaintiff’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries but attributed 30% of the fault to the plaintiff:

…[W]e conclude that the verdict was internally inconsistent inasmuch as the jury found that plaintiff’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries, but also attributed 30% of the fault to plaintiff … . Such an internal inconsistency in a verdict can be remedied “only . . . upon further consideration by the jury . . . or by a new trial” … . Here, of course, the jury had been discharged by the time of plaintiff’s motion, and thus it was too late to require the jury to reconsider its answers to the interrogatories on the verdict sheet.

Although plaintiff failed to object to the inconsistency in the verdict before the jury was discharged …, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial … . Allen v Lowczus, 2014 NY Slip Op 04288, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

No Assets Left to Distribute—Disposition of a Painting Which Was Part of the Estate and Had Been Donated to a Museum Could Be Protected by the Attorney General (Charged with Protecting the Donor’s Wishes)–No Need to Issue Letters of Administration to Petitioner to Ensure Proper Use of the Painting

The Fourth Department determined letters of administration should not have been granted because all the assets of the estate had been distributed.  The letters were sought by a relative of the decedent who was concerned about the disposition of a valuable painting which was a charitable gift to a museum and could not be otherwise disposed of without a court order.  The court concluded that the disposition of the painting could be protected by the Attorney General:

…[W]e … conclude that [the Surrogate] erred in granting letters of administration c.t.a. to petitioner. It is undisputed that there are no assets of the estate that have not been administered … . As the Court of Appeals has written, “[t]here may be cases where letters of administration are necessary to be granted for other purposes than the recovery and distribution of assets[,]” including a “claim in respect to them which can be enforced” … . Nevertheless, we conclude that any claim with respect to the painting is to be “enforced by the [Attorney General], pursuant to his duty to effectuate the donor’s wishes” …, and we conclude that letters of administration c.t.a. are not “necessary” … .

We further conclude that limited letters of administration also are not “appropriate or necessary in respect of the affairs of the estate” (SCPA 702 [10]…). … [T]he Surrogate has previously prohibited the disposition of the painting without court approval, and there is no basis to conclude that the Attorney General is not properly fulfilling his duty to protect the decedent’s wishes with respect to the bequest to the Emerson Foundation … . Matter of Seward, 2014 NY Slip Op 04317, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Photograph of Accident Scene Properly Admitted Notwithstanding Flowers Remembering Victim

The Fourth Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction stemming from the death of a passenger after defendant’s vehicle struck a tree, determined that the photograph of the accident scene was properly admitted notwithstanding the flowers placed at the scene in remembrance of the victim.  The court also rejected arguments that (1) defendant’s post-arrest silence was revealed to the jury (not preserved) (2) turning off the overhead projector effectively closed the courtroom (not preserved) and (3) defense counsel was erroneously prohibited from questioning the medical examiner about alternative causes for the victim’s injuries (speculative,  insufficient foundation).  With respect to the photograph, the court wrote:

“The general rule is stated in People v Pobliner (32 NY2d 356, 369…) photographs are admissible if they tend to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered.’ They should be excluded only if [their] sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant’ ” … . Here, we agree with the People that the sole purpose of the evidence was not to arouse the emotions of the jury. To the contrary, the photographs established the relative positions of the tree and the roadway, the visibility of the tree, and the straight nature of the roadway, all of which were relevant to the jury’s factual determinations, including whether defendant was driving while in an intoxicated condition. People v Boop, 2014 NY Slip Op 04296, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

Defendant Failed to Meet Its Burden on Its Summary Judgment Motion—Not Enough to Point to Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in dismissing a lawsuit against a residential care facility based upon plaintiff’s decedent’s being fatally injured by another resident. The court noted that the motion for summary judgment was brought by the defendant and it was therefore not enough for the defendant to allege only deficiencies in  plaintiff’s proof:

We conclude that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion because defendant “failed to come forward with any proof to rebut plaintiff[‘s] allegations and merely focused on the claimed deficiency in plaintiff[‘s] proof” … . In support of its motion, defendant repeatedly argued that plaintiff “failed to satisfy [her] burden” of establishing a prima facie case of negligence because of the “absence of proof[]” with respect to duty, breach of duty, foreseeability, and proximate cause. Those arguments are misplaced, however, because “defendant, not plaintiff, moved for summary judgment and defendant cannot meet its burden by relying on claimed deficienc[ies] in plaintiff[‘s] proof’ ” … . Although plaintiff will bear the burden of establishing defendant’s negligence at trial, “on this motion for summary judgment, defendant has the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … , and we conclude that defendant failed to meet that burden … .

Defendant concedes that there was an altercation between decedent and another resident, and that such altercation resulted in decedent’s injuries. With respect to the foreseeability of the resident’s alleged conduct, “defendant[], as the part[y] seeking summary judgment, bore the burden of establishing that the assault on [decedent] was not foreseeable” … . Defendant, however, “failed to submit any evidence to show that [it] lacked knowledge of any danger presented by the [resident],” and thus failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Schnorr v Emeritus Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04314, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

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