You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

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

 

“Rare Case” Where Facts Supported Both Depraved Indifference and Intentional Murder

The Fourth Department determined the facts of the case—defendant fired a pistol at three people he did not know, killing one—supported both intentional and depraved indifference murder.  Defendant had been “jumped” by a student from a particular housing project.  Three days later defendant went to the project and committed the shooting:

The relevant legal principles for evaluating the above trial evidence are well settled. Depraved indifference is a mental state

” best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life—a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not’ ” … . “Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish the necessary mens rea” … . Although shooting into a crowd of people is a ” [q]uintessential example[ ]’ ” of depraved indifference … , the mere presence of others does not transform an otherwise intentional shooting into a depraved indifference murder or assault … . Rather, the point of distinction between a criminal act committed with intent and a criminal act committed with depraved indifference is that the former is motivated by the “conscious objective” to cause death or serious physical injury, while the latter is “recklessly indifferent, depravedly so, to whether death [or serious physical injury] occurs” … .

We conclude that this case is one of those “rare” cases where the defendant properly could have been charged with both intentional and depraved indifference murder …. Stated otherwise, and contrary to defendant’s contention, he is not “guilty of an intentional shooting or no other” … . The evidence summarized above, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, establishes a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person” to conclude that defendant, by shooting indiscriminately at a group of people that he did not know, acted with depraved indifference to human life rather than with intent to kill … . People v Archie, 2014 NY Slip Op 04307, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

, ,

Absentee Landlord Granted Summary Judgment in Lead-Paint Exposure Case—No Constructive Notice

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment was properly granted to an absentee landlord in a lead-paint exposure case.  The landlord had never seen the property:

Defendant and his wife acquired the property by deed in January 1993, and they took title to the property as tenants by the entirety. Defendant’s wife died in 2004. Defendant testified at his deposition that his participation in the acquisition of the property was as an accommodation to the financial situation of his wife’s son and her nephew. Defendant denied that he had anything to do with the property and asserted that he was only an owner “on paper.” Defendant never saw the property, never went there, never received any rent, did not know that a child resided there and never received any correspondence related thereto. Defendant did not execute any lease agreements with respect to the property. “To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition” … . Hamilton v Picardo, 2014 NY Slip Op 04290, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Suit Against City for Attempting to Resuscitate Plaintiff with an Inoperable Defibrillator Properly Dismissed—No Special Duty Owed to Plaintiff

The Fourth Department determined causes of action against the city stemming from an inoperable defibrillator which delayed the resuscitation of plaintiff (Angona) were properly dismissed.  Angona had suffered a heart attack and fire department personnel responded. The rendering of resuscitative care and treatment involved a governmental function and the city owed no special duty to the plaintiff:

All of [the] claims of negligence arise from the City’s exercise of governmental functions … . Thus, “[t]o sustain liability against [the City], the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally” … . The City met its burden of establishing the absence of a special duty owed to Angona in these circumstances …, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We reject plaintiff’s contention that the City owed a special duty to Angona by virtue of his status as an off-duty firefighter. Angona v City of Syracuse, 2014 NY Slip Op 04322, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

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

 

,

Corporate Integrity Documents Privileged Under Education Law 6527 (3)

The Fourth Department determined corporate integrity documents sought by plaintiffs in a fraud and dental malpractice action were privileged under the Education Law and did not have to be disclosed:

We conclude that the court erred in determining that the requested corporate integrity documents were not privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3). [Defendant] met its burden of establishing that the corporate integrity documents sought by plaintiffs were related to the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program” … . Specifically, [defendant] established that the corporate integrity documents were prepared pursuant to state and federal corporate integrity agreements, which set forth procedures for the review and monitoring of the quality of care of the dental clinics. Thus, [defendant] established” that it has a review procedure and that the [corporate integrity documents] for which the [privilege] is claimed [were] obtained or maintained in accordance with that review procedure’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, there is nothing in the language of section 6527 (3) limiting applicability of the privilege to agencies located in New York or records prepared in the state… . Matter of Small Smiles Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 03080, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

Surrogate’s Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine the Validity of a Handwritten Will Supported by the Affidavits of Two Attesting Witnesses—If Valid, the 2012 Handwritten Will Would Have Revoked the 2002 Will

The Fourth Department reversed Surrogate’s Court and ordered that a hearing be held to determine whether a 2012 will revoked a 2002 will.  The 2012 will was handwritten and included some confusing language, but it was supported by the affidavits of two attesting witnesses.  There was sufficient evidence of the validity of the 2012 will to warrant a hearing:

We conclude that petitioner demonstrated a substantial basis for contesting the 2002 will. Execution of a subsequent will revokes a former will if the subsequent will is “so inconsistent with the former will that the two cannot stand together,” even in the absence of an express revocation clause in the subsequent will … . Here, the 2002 will named respondent as the sole beneficiary, but the 2012 will named petitioner as the sole beneficiary and purported to dispose of all of decedent’s property. We therefore conclude that the provisions of the 2002 will are so inconsistent with those of the 2012 will that, if the Surrogate were “satisfied with the genuineness of the [2012] will and the validity of its execution” (SCPA 1408 [1]), the 2012 will would revoke the 2002 will. Thus, in this case, whether petitioner had a reasonable probability of successfully vacating probate of the 2002 will was dependent upon whether he could prove, through competent evidence, that the 2012 will was genuine and duly executed and attested …. Matter of Gehr, 2014 NY Slip Op 03049, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Police Officer Struck by Plaintiffs’ Decedents When the Officer Was Making a U-Turn to Follow a Car Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Under the Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard

The Fourth Department determined summary judgment should have been granted in favor of a police officer (Bluman) who was struck by plaintiffs' decedents when the officer was attempting to make a u-turn to follow a vehicle.  The court determined the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 applied and that the officer's “momentary judgment lapse” did not rise to the level of reckless disregard as a matter of law:

At the time of the accident, Bluman was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a]) and was engaged in an emergency operation by virtue of the fact that he was attempting a U-turn in order to “pursu[e] an actual or suspected violator of the law” (§ 114-b). As the Court of Appeals recognized …, “the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b). Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence.” We conclude that, by attempting to execute a U-turn, Bluman's conduct was exempted from the rules of the road by section 1104 (b) (4). As a result, his conduct is governed by the reckless disregard standard of care in section 1104 (e).

It is well settled that a ” momentary judgment lapse' does not alone rise to the level of recklessness required of the driver of an emergency vehicle in order for liability to attach” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 557). Here, Bluman acted under the mistaken belief that the other southbound vehicles were sufficiently behind him and that it was, at that moment, safe to execute a U-turn. This “constituted a momentary lapse in judgment not rising to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others' “… . Dodds v Town of Hamburg, 2014 NY Slip Op 03060, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

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