You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

Plaintiff Raised a Question of Fact About Whether Her Employment Was Terminated in Retaliation for Protected Activity

The Fourth Department concluded plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the termination of her employment with the county was in retaliation for protected activity. The wife of plaintiff’s boss was a special education teacher working with plaintiff’s son. Shortly after complaining to the school district about the special education plaintiff’s son was receiving, plaintiff’s job was eliminated. The Fourth Department summarized the applicable law as follows:

In order to make out a claim for unlawful retaliation under state or federal law, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … .In order to establish entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant may “demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation” or, alternatively, a defendant may “offer legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions,” and show that there are “no triable issue[s] of fact . . . whether the . . . [reasons are] pretextual”… . * * *With respect to the element of a causal connection, we note that such element “may be established either ‘indirectly by showing that the protected activity was followed closely by [retaliatory] treatment, . . . or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against a plaintiff by the defendant’ ”… . Calhoun v County of Herkimer, 1303, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

,

Defendant’s Reaching for Something in His Pocket, Without More, Did Not Justify Police Pursuit

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that the defendant’s reaching for something in his pocket, without more, did not justify police pursuit. Therefore defendant’s suppression motion was properly granted:

Here, although defendant was reaching for his jacket pocket as he walked or ran away from the second officer, neither officer testified that he saw a bulge or the outline of a weapon in defendant’s jacket. Rather, the second officer believed that defendant had a gun only because, in his experience, if an individual pulled vigorously at an object in his or her pocket, but the object did not come out easily, that object usually was a weapon. While we are mindful that an officer may rely on his or her knowledge and experience in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, we respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the above circumstances were sufficient to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion “in the absence of other objective indicia of criminality” … . Here, before pursuing defendant, the second officer knew only that defendant was walking across the street in a high-crime area, in the general vicinity of a house where an unnamed person of unestablished reliability claimed to have seen guns, and that, when the police approached, defendant walked or ran away while grabbing at his jacket pocket. We cannot conclude, based on the totality of those circumstances, that the police were justified in pursuing defendant… . People v Ingram, 1115, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

No Probable Cause for Arrest—Convictions Stemming from Arrest Reversed

The Fourth Department determined the deputy sheriff did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant because the defendant had not committed a crime in the deputy’s presence. Therefore all the charges stemming from the illegal arrest were not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the deputy’s arrest of defendant was lawful inasmuch as the deputy lacked reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed an offense in her presence (see CPL 140.10 [1] [a]). Because the arrest was not authorized at its inception, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of assault, obstructing governmental administration, and resisting arrest …, and reversal therefore is required. People v LaBoy, 96, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

Hospital Does Not Have a Duty to Prevent a Patient from Leaving the Hospital Against Medical Advice or to Ensure Patient’s Safe Return Home

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, concluded a cause of action against defendant hospital brought by a patient who suffered frostbite after leaving the hospital against medical advice should have been dismissed:

…[P]laintiffs alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent plaintiff from leaving the hospital and in failing to ensure plaintiff’s safety when he left the hospital inasmuch as defendant’s staff did not contact plaintiff’s wife or make arrangements for someone to pick him up. We agree with defendant that, pursuant to Kowalski v St. Francis Hosp. & Health Ctrs. (21 NY3d 480, 484-485), which was decided after the court rendered its decision …, it did not have a duty to prevent plaintiff from leaving the hospital against medical advice. We further agree with defendant that it did not have the concomitant duty to ensure plaintiff’s safe return home … . Inguitti v Rochester General Hospital, 1302, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

Skiers Do Not Assume the Risk of Recklessness on the Part of Another Skier

The Fourth Department determined the doctrine of assumption of the risk did not rule out a novice skier’s lawsuit against a skier who ran into her. There was a question whether defendant’s conduct was reckless:

It is well established that, “by engaging in a sport orrecreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “While awareness or appreciation of such risks must be ‘assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff’ . . . , ‘[t]he risk of injury caused by another skier is an inherent risk of downhill skiing’ ” … . Nevertheless, “a sporting participant ‘will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct’ ” … . “ ‘Generally, the issue of assumption of [the] risk is a question of fact for the jury’ ”… . Moore… v Hoffman, 138, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

Evidence Sufficient to Demonstrate No Constructive Notice of Ice on Step

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined defendants had demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of ice alleged to be on a step. The proof submitted by the defendants included evidence that the step was routinely inspected every morning, although no evidence of such an inspection on the morning in question was submitted:

The facilities supervisor testified that he routinely inspects the bank’s steps and sidewalk upon his arrival at the bank between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. He or his employees salt or shovel “first thing” in the morning, if the conditions require such action. In addition to inspecting the property upon their arrival, facilities personnel regularly monitor conditions throughout the day and “re-salt or re-shovel” as needed, and do so more frequently during inclement weather or if a customer complains. Defendants did not receive any complaints about snow, ice, or any other dangerous condition on the step prior to the accident. After the accident, which occurred at approximately 12:15 p.m., the facilities supervisor did not salt the steps or direct an employee to do so because he saw nothing to salt. Defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of their regional manager, who testified that there was no ice on the step when he arrived at the bank between 8 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on the morning of the accident and that, after the accident, he inspected the step and the surrounding area and did not observe any snow or ice. A bank security officer testified that he photographed the step approximately two hours after the accident, at which time there was no snow or ice on the step. The security officer testified that he was “perplex[ed]” when he viewed the accident scene because he observed “nothing . . . to slip or fall on.” The postaccident photographs of the step depict what appears to be salt residue, but no ice. Austin v CDGA National Bank Trust and Canandaigua National Corporation…, 1298, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

Failure to Address Youthful Offender Eligibility Required Remittal

The Fourth Department determined the trial court did not consider whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender and sent the matter back:

At sentencing, defense counsel made several applications for defendant to be treated as a youthful offender, but the court did not expressly rule on them; instead, the court imposed a sentence that was incompatible with youthful offender treatment.

“Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant.  After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]).  A sentencing court must determine whether to grant youthful offender status to every defendant who is eligible for it because, inter alia, “[t]he judgment of a court as to which young people have a real likelihood of turning their lives around is just too valuable, both to the offender and to the community, to be sacrificed in plea bargaining” … .  “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the. . . [applications] as . . . denial[s] thereof” … .  Furthermore, even if the court had denied the applications, there is no information in the record from which we could ascertain whether the court properly did so in the exercise of its discretion, or whether it improperly acceded to the prosecutor’s plea conditions.  People v Potter, 1199, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Failure to Turn Over Brady Material Until the Day of Trial Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined the prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material (911 tape recording) until the day of trial required reversal:

“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material . . . In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for [an item of discovery], the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … .

Here, the 911 recording is exculpatory because it includes the voice of an unidentified person referring to a white male suspect, and defendant herein is a black male.  Although defendant received the 911 recording as part of the Rosario material provided to him on the first day of trial, he was not “given a meaningful opportunity to use the exculpatory evidence”… . People v Carver, 1311, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

Court Was Not Authorized to Deny a 440 Motion Without a Hearing Where People Submitted No Opposition to the Defendant’s Adequate Papers

The Fourth Department determined the trial court was not authorized to deny a 440 motion to vacate defendant’s conviction without a hearing because the defendant submitted affidavits supporting the motion and the People submitted no opposition:

County Court erred in denying without a hearing defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the judgment convicting him of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) on the grounds that material evidence adduced at his trial was false and was known by the prosecutor to be false prior to the entry of judgment and that the judgment was obtained in violation of his due process rights (see CPL 440.10 [1] [c], [h]).  Defendant submitted two affidavits from a prosecution witness that “tend[ ] to substantiate all the essential facts” necessary to support defendant’s claims (CPL 440.30 [4] [b]).  The People submitted nothing in opposition to the motion that would require or indeed allow the court to deny the motion without a hearing (see CPL 440.30 [2], [4]) and, therefore, the court “was not statutorily authorized to deny defendant’s motion without a hearing”… . People v Parsons, 48, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Verdict Properly Set Aside Based Upon Trial Court’s Own Denial of Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment to Retain New Counsel/Criteria for Trial Court’s Setting Aside a Verdict Explained

The Fourth Department, after explaining the criteria for setting aside a verdict, ruled the trial court had properly set aside the verdict in this case due to the trial court’s own erroneous denial of defendant’s request for an adjournment to seek new counsel:

“Pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), following the issuance of a verdict and before sentencing a court may set aside a verdict on ‘[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court’ ” … . “The power granted a Trial Judge is, thus, far more limited than that of an intermediate appellate court, which is authorized to determine not only questions of law but issues of fact . . . , to reverse or modify a judgment when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence . . . , and to reverse ‘[a]s a matter of discretion in the interest of justice’ ”… . * * *

In our view, the court’s refusal to grant defendant’s request for an adjournment was “an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” and effectively denied defendant the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing …   On the date scheduled for suppression hearings, defense counsel, who had been retained by defendant’s family while defendant was incarcerated, withdrew defendant’s requests for suppression and sought an expedited trial without defendant’s knowledge or consent.  At the next court appearance, defendant requested an adjournment of the expedited trial to afford him time in which to retain another attorney.  The court, in denying that request, did not afford defendant “[a] reasonable time and a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice”…, particularly in view of the fact that the trial was expedited without defendant’s knowledge or consent… .  Inasmuch as we conclude that defendant was denied the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing, reversal of the judgment of conviction on that ground would be required as a matter of law upon an appeal therefrom (see CPL 330.30 [1]), and the court therefore properly set aside the verdict. People v Rohadfox, 1367, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

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