You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) Has Authority to Address the Pollution of New York Waters by Oil and Gas Producer Operating Across the Border in Pennsylvania/DEC’s Authority Not Demonstrated to Be Preempted by Federal Clean Water Act

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition brought by an oil and gas producer seeking to prohibit the New York State Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) from enforcing consent orders which concern the pollution of Yeager Brook in the Allegany State Park.  The oil and gas producer is operating across the border in Pennsylvania on land owned by the US Forest Service.  The court held that the DEC has the authority to address the pollution of New York waters and rejected the argument that the DEC’s authority to act was preempted by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA):

Beginning in 2010, personnel of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation reported pollution, including turbidity, color change, and suspended sediment, in New York’s Yeager Brook, downstream from and caused by petitioner’s operations in Pennsylvania, in contravention of New York’s water quality standards. Subsequently, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) entered into two consent orders with petitioner concerning the aforementioned pollution. Because of alleged continued and ongoing violations, the DEC commenced an administrative proceeding in New York seeking to enforce the consent orders and the penalties for the violations thereof. Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding contending, inter alia, that the DEC is acting in excess of its jurisdiction because the federal Clean Water Act ([CWA] 33 USC § 1251 et seq.) preempts the application of an affected state’s laws and regulations to an out-of-state point source … .

As the party seeking a writ of prohibition, petitioner bears a “heavy burden” of establishing a “clear legal right to relief or that prohibition would provide a more complete and efficacious remedy than the administrative proceeding and resulting judicial review” … . We conclude that respondents in support of their motion to dismiss established as a matter of law that petitioner could not meet that burden, and Supreme Court therefore properly granted the motion. The DEC had the statutory authority and jurisdiction to enter into the consent orders at issue and to commence the administrative proceeding to enforce those orders (see ECL 17-0303 [2], [4] [a], [b]; [5] [a]; see also ECL 17-0105 [1]; ECL 17-0501). Petitioner has failed to establish in this proceeding that the DEC’s exercise of such authority and jurisdiction is clearly preempted by the CWA, inasmuch as it has not shown that enforcement of the consent orders would “stand[] as an obstacle to the full implementation of the CWA” … . Moreover, the preemptive effect of the CWA “should be determined, in the first instance, through the administrative process”… . “[E]ven as to a clearly ultra vires act, prohibition does not lie against an administrative agency if another avenue of judicial review is available, absent a demonstration of irreparable injury to the applicant if [it] is relegated to such other course” … . No such irreparable injury has been demonstrated here.  Matter of US Energy Dev Corp v NYS Department of Environmental Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 04591, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

, ,

Termination Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness

The Fourth Department determined the termination of a city employee shocked one’s sense of fairness.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

“[A] result is shocking to one’s sense of fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally” … . “Where, as here, there is no grave moral turpitude’ and no grave injury to the agency involved or to the public weal,’ courts may ameliorate harsh impositions of sanctions by administrative agencies . . . in order to accomplish what a sense of justice would dictate’ ” … . Matter of Harwood v Addison, 2014 NY Slip Op 04660, 4th Dept 6-20=14

 

,

Statement Identifying Shooter Made by a Witness Who Did Not See the Shooting Should Not Have Been Admitted Under the Present Sense Impression Exception to the Hearsay Rule

In a decision which affirmed the conviction and addressed several other important evidentiary issues, the Fourth Department noted that a statement identifying the defendant as the shooter made by a witness who did not see the shooting should not have been admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule:

It is well settled that, in order “[t]o qualify as a present sense impression, the out-of-court statement must be (1) made by a person perceiving the event as it is unfolding or immediately afterward . . . , and (2) corroborated by independent evidence establishing the reliability of the contents of the statement” (id. at 382). Here, the witness did not see the shooting, and he confirmed defendant’s identity as the shooter only after questioning the victim (see People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 580; see also People v Brown, 104 AD3d 1203, 1204, lv denied 21 NY3d 1014). Therefore, the witness’s statement was not admissible as a present sense impression, and we conclude that the admission of that statement in evidence improperly bolstered the victim’s identification of defendant as the shooter … . People v Mulligan, 2014 NY Slip Op 04588, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

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

 

,

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

 

“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

 

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