You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Possible Error of Law Committed by Judge Did Not Warrant a Prohibition Action

The Fourth Department determined the prosecutor’s prohibition action against a judge should have been dismissed.  The judge had ordered a competency hearing to determine if the complainant in a criminal case was competent to testify in light of her intoxication:

Here, petitioner argued — and Supreme Court agreed — that respondent acted in excess of her authority in ordering a competency hearing because a witness’ level of intoxication at the time of the incident in question and its effect on his or her ability to recall the events has no bearing on whether such witness is competent to testify at trial. It is manifest, however, that a trial court has the authority to make a preliminary inquiry as to a witness’ competency to testify at trial (see CPL 60.20 [1]…). As such, any error in respondent’s decision to hold a competency hearing would, at most, amount to a mere substantive error of law that does not justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. “[P]rohibition will not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however egregious the error may be, and however cleverly the error may be characterized by counsel as an excess of jurisdiction or power” … . Matter of Getman, 2014 NY Slip Op 05012, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 and 200 Actions Against the Town Should Have Been Dismissed—Although the Town Hired Plaintiff to Do Work on the Town’s Right of Way, the Accident Occurred on Adjacent Private Property—Labor Law 200 Action Against the Property Owners Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the Labor Law 240 and 200 actions against the town should have been dismissed because the injury occurred on private land, not town land.  The court further determined that the Labor Law 200 action against the landowners (the Hersheys) should not have been dismissed because the owners did not demonstrate as a matter of law their lack of notice of the dangerous condition.  The plaintiff had been hired by the town to do sidewalk and driveway work on the town’s right of way next to the Hersheys’ property. The plaintiff was parking a backhoe on the Hersheys’ property, with the Hersheys’ permission, when it tipped over into a ravine:

…[W]e agree with the Town that the court erred in denying the Town’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action against it, inasmuch as the Town is not an “owner” for purposes of those statutes … . It is well settled that “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a person who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his [or her] benefit’ ” … . Here, the accident occurred well outside of the Town’s right-of-way, and the Town had no other interest in or legal authority over the landing area, which was located entirely on the Hersheys’ private property … . The Town established that it was Kenneth Hershey, not the Town, who gave plaintiff permission to park in the landing area; that the Town had no authority to grant such permission to plaintiff; and that Kenneth Hershey directed plaintiff where to park. Further, the Town established that the landing area was not part of the construction site … . No work was being performed in the landing area, and the landing area was not contiguous or in proximity to the construction site … . Moreover, the Town established that it was not necessary for plaintiff to park the backhoe in the landing area. The Town provided plaintiff with parking in a municipal garage, which was located a few miles from the work site. Plaintiff, however, testified at his deposition that he chose to use the landing area because it was closer to the work site and more “convenient” to do so … . Farruggia v Town of Penfield, 2014 NY Slip Op 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s Examining Physician Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum was properly denied, even though the billing documents for the insurance company’s (State Farm’s) examining physician were sought for cross-examination and impeachment purposes:

State Farm moved to quash the subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2304 on the ground that it was plaintiff’s intent to use the subpoenaed materials to impeach the examining physician’s general credibility. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that she intended to use the subpoenaed documents to cross-examine the examining physician at trial with respect to his bias or interest. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

“It is . . . well settled that a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be granted only where the materials sought are utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . “Moreover, the burden of establishing that the requested documents and records are utterly irrelevant is on the person being subpoenaed” … . It is “proper to allow cross-examination of a physician regarding the fact that the defendant’s insurance company retained him to examine the plaintiff in order to show bias or interest on the part of the witness” … . Questions concerning the bias, motive or interest of a witness are relevant and should be “freely permitted and answered” …  and, thus, plaintiff is entitled to discovery materials that will assist her in preparing such questions. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Dominici v Ford, 2014 NY Slip Op 05081, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

In a Partition Action, Tenant in Common Not Liable to Other Tenants in Common for Use and Occupancy of the Property/Tenant in Common Entitled to Reimbursement from Other Tenants in Common for Taxes and Repairs

In the context of a partition action, the Fourth Department explained that a tenant in common is not liable to other tenants in common for the use and occupancy of the property and is entitled to reimbursement of any payments made for taxes and repairs:

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court properly determined that defendant was not liable to them for the value of defendant’s use and occupancy. “[P]artition is an equitable remedy in nature and [the court] has the authority to adjust the rights of the parties so [that] each receives his or her proper share of the property and its benefits” (Hunt v Hunt, 13 AD3d 1041, 1042). A tenant in common “has the right to take and occupy the whole of the premises and preserve them from waste or injury, so long as he or she does not interfere with the right of [the other tenants] to also occupy the premises” … . “Mere occupancy alone by one of the tenants does not make that tenant liable to the other tenant[s] for use and occupancy absent an agreement to that effect or an ouster” … , both of which are absent here.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, the court properly determined that defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for payments that he made for property taxes and repairs. It is well settled that a tenant in common is entitled to be reimbursed for the share of the taxes paid by him for the benefit of other tenants in common … . Additionally, a tenant in common is entitled to be reimbursed for money expended in maintaining, repairing and improving the property, if such maintenance, repairs, and improvements were undertaken in good faith and were necessary to protect or preserve the property … . Cooney v Shepard, 2014 NY Slip Op 04589, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

Petition for Modification of Custody Should Not Have Been Dismissed Without a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed mother’s petition for a modification of custody without holding a hearing:

It is well settled that a party seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show “a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child[ren]” … . Although a “hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody order”… , we conclude that the mother made a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to warrant a hearing … . “[T]he mother’s allegations that [the father] imposed excessive and inappropriate discipline on the subject children, including corporal punishment, [were] sufficient to warrant a hearing” … , as were the mother’s allegations that the father had refused to permit her to exercise visitation with the subject children for four weeks … . Consequently, we agree with the mother that the court erred in dismissing the petition without conducting a hearing.  Matter of Isler v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04678, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

Mother Not Adequately Apprised of Her Right to Counsel—New Hearing Ordered

The Fourth Department determined a new hearing was required because mother was not adequately apprised of her right to counsel:

We agree with the mother that she was denied her right to counsel. The mother was entitled to representation based upon her status as a respondent in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding and a person alleged to be in willful violation of a court order, and Family Court’s inquiry concerning her decision to proceed pro se was insufficient to enable the court to determine whether she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to counsel… . Matter of Seifert v Pastwick, 2014 NY Slip Op 04677, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

Party Represented by Counsel at a Scheduled Court Appearance Has Not Failed to Appear

In affirming the termination of mother’s parental rights, the Fourth Department noted that a party who is represented by an attorney at a scheduled court appearance has not failed to appear:

A party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear’ ” … . The mother initially appeared at the fact-finding hearing, and her attorney participated in the hearing by presenting an opening statement and cross-examining the first witness. The mother’s attorney chose not to participate in the remainder of the hearing when the mother left the courtroom after the first witness testified. Inasmuch as the mother’s attorney “appeared at and participated in the hearing” until the mother left the courtroom, “there was no default”… . Matter of Savanna G, 2014 NY Slip Op 04658, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to Considerable Testimony About Prior Consistent Statements Made by the Victim Concerning Alleged Sexual Abuse Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied.   The complainant was allowed to describe prior consistent statements she made about the alleged incidents of sexual abuse. In addition, the People’s expert was allowed to testify about those prior consistent statements.  Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to that testimony and she indicated she had no strategic purpose in failing to object.  The majority determined the prior consistent statements were admissible because they completed a narrative.  The dissent noted that no cases supporting the introduction of prior consistent statements to complete a narrative were found.  In the opinion of the dissenters, the prior consistent statements constituted inadmissible bolstering and defense counsel’s failure to object to them constituted ineffective assistance:

… [O]ur dissenting colleagues conclude that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the testimony of the victim that she reported to her mother at age six that defendant had touched her in a sexual manner; that she reported to her sister at age 14 that defendant had raped her; and that she told a police witness and the grand jury what she told the jury during her testimony. We respectfully disagree with that conclusion. Although the dissent correctly notes that the repetition of prior consistent statements may “give to a jury an exaggerated idea of the probative force of a party’s case” … , here, the victim’s testimony constituted a narrative of events. Indeed, she did not repeat the specific allegations of her testimony, i.e., that defendant had engaged in anal penetration … . In light of defense counsel’s opening statement that the relationship between defendant, the victim and the victim’s mother was such that it could “cause someone to make fake allegations,” the narrative of events was relevant. We also disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s remarks during summation referencing that testimony constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the remarks were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation challenging the credibility of the victim and her motivation for making the accusations …, we conclude that the failure of defense counsel to object to those comments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Gross, 2014 NY Slip Op 04592, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

Father’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b Which Is Relevant Solely to Destitute or Dependent Children

The Fourth Department determined father’s parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b, which was not applicable:

Social Services Law § 384-b is entitled “Guardianship and custody of destitute or dependent children; commitment by court order; modification of commitment and restoration of parental rights” (emphasis added). A destitute child is defined as a child “who is in a state of want or suffering due to lack of sufficient food, clothing, shelter, or medical or surgical care,” does not fit within the definition of an abused or neglected child and is without any parent or caretaker; “a child who is . . . absent from his or her legal residence without the consent of his or her parent, legal guardian or custodian”; “a child . . . who is without a place of shelter where supervision and care are available;” or “a person who is a former foster care youth under the age of twenty-one who was previously placed in the care and custody of [DSS] . . . and who was discharged from foster care . . . , [and] who has returned to foster care” (§ 371 [3] [a] – [d]). A dependent child is defined as “a child who is in the custody of, or wholly or partly maintained by an authorized agency or an institution, society or other organization of charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory character” (§ 371 [7]). It is indisputable that the subject child is neither a destitute nor a dependent child. Social Services Law § 384-b is thus inapplicable to the child and may not be invoked by either the mother or DSS as a means to terminate the father’s parental rights. We therefore reverse the order and grant the father’s motion to dismiss the petition. We note, however, that our determination does not leave the mother without a remedy. She may seek to dispense with the father’s consent to adoption pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a) … . Matter of Anastasia I, 2014 NY Slip Op 04657, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

, ,

Reversible Error to Instruct the Jury On an Affirmative Defense Over Defense Counsel’s Objection

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s intentional murder conviction because the trial judge, in response to a question from the jury, instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of renunciation over defense counsel’s objection.  The court explained the relevant law:

It is well settled that a court cannot instruct a jury on an affirmative defense where the defendant objects to the instruction … . When a court does so, it impairs a defendant’s “unquestionabl[e] . . . right to chart his [or her] own defense” …; it may “undermine[] the defense chosen by [the] defendant[,] . . . [and] place[] [the] defendant in the midst of contradictory defenses” …; and it indisputably “impose[s] on [the] defendant an affirmative burden of proof he [or she] had not undertaken by his [or her] defense theory” … . The imposition of a burden of proof on a defendant who has not elected to pursue an affirmative defense “constitute[s] an abuse of the affirmative defense in deorgation of [a] defendant’s right to have the State bear the entire burden of proof” … . The 3rd Department has even stated that a court “is without the jurisdiction to, sua sponte, instruct the jury on an affirmative defense or force a defendant to raise such a defense” … .

Where, as here, the defendant has repeatedly advanced only a defense, which carries no burden of proof, “the suggestion that he [or she] had assumed a burden of proof . . . ha[s] the potential to mislead the jury” … . The affirmative defense of renunciation requires a defendant to meet an initial burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence …, that he or she “withdrew from participation in such offense prior to the commission thereof and made a substantial effort to prevent the commission thereof” (Penal Law § 40.10 [1] [emphasis added]). There was no evidence presented at trial that defendant made any effort, let alone a substantial one, to prevent the commission of the murder. The only conclusion the jury could have drawn was that defendant had failed to meet his burden of establishing the affirmative defense. Here…, “[t]he imposition of an affirmative burden of proof over defense objection and the involuntary undermining of the defendant’s chosen defense strategy resulted in serious prejudice that requires reversal”… . People v Brewer, 2014 NY Slip Op 04606, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

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