You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

Whether an Element of a Crime Has Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Can Now Be Determined in a “Weight of the Evidence” Review/Such a Determination Is a Matter of Law Identical to a Determination the Evidence Is Legally Insufficient/After Making Such a “Legal” “Weight of the Evidence” Determination, the Court Is Not Constrained to Dismiss the Indictment As It Is When It Makes a “Factual” Determination a Conviction Is Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, with concurring and dissenting opinions, the Fourth Department reduced defendant’s conviction from murder to manslaughter after applying a “weight of the evidence” analysis. The court explained it is now well-settled that a “weight of the evidence” review may consider whether the elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the court determined there was insufficient evidence of an intent to kill. The stab wounds were inflicted in an attempt to escape the victim’s grasp during an altercation started by the victim. Even though the evidence was analyzed under a “weight of the evidence” review, the court actually concluded the evidence of intent to kill was insufficient as a matter of law. Because a question of law was determinative, the court held that it had the power to reduce the conviction, rather than dismiss the indictment (dismissal of the indictment is the statutory remedy for a “factual” “against the weight of the evidence” finding):

…[I]t is now well established that, “in conducting its weight of the evidence review, a court must consider the elements of the crime, for even if the prosecution’s witnesses were credible their testimony must prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” (Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349). Upon our review of the elements of the crime of murder in the second degree, we conclude that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the People, “a jury could [not] logically conclude that the People sustained [their] burden of proof” with respect to the element of intent to kill … . * * *

We therefore conclude that, despite the fact that our review is in the context of a contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, our assessment of the elements of the crime of murder in the second degree under these circumstances is not a determination on the facts (see CPL 470.15 [5]), i.e., a consideration of the “credible evidence, conflicting testimony and inferences that could be drawn from the evidence” (Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349). Instead, our assessment is a determination on the law that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to the element of intent (see CPL 470.15 [4] [b]).

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague’s conclusion that our review is limited by defendant’s “request for only a weight-based review” and that, based on that request, we must reverse the judgment as against the weight of the evidence and dismiss the indictment. Our conclusion that the judgment should be modified by reducing the conviction to a lesser included offense is supported by our reasoning that a defendant may not usurp our authority to determine the appropriate statutory remedy as set forth in CPL 470.20 by the manner in which he or she challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, i.e., within the context of a weight of the evidence contention rather than by an express contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). In other words, we conclude that we are not required to afford the remedy of dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 470.20 (5) merely because defendant’s contention that the evidence of the intent to kill was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt is made in the context of a request for a weight of the evidence review, rather than in the context of a contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, even if that contention is not preserved for our review. People v Heatley, 1051, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

, ,

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

 

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

 

Unlawful Imprisonment Charge Merged With Assault Charge

The Fourth Department determined the doctrine of judicial merger required dismissal of the unlawful imprisonment charge because it merged with the charged assault:

“Under the doctrine of judicial merger, an unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping that is incidental to and inseparable from the commission of another crime merges with such other crime” … .  In determining whether the merger doctrine applies herein, “our guiding principle is whether [defendant’s] restraint [of the victim] was so much the part of another substantive crime [, i.e., the crime of assault,] that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts [constituting the crime of unlawful imprisonment] and that independent criminal responsibility may not fairly be attributed to them” … .  Here, the brief “abduction” of the victim, i.e., the moment when defendant grabbed the victim and pulled him outside the dwelling at issue, was “merely ‘preliminary, preparatory, or concurrent action’ in relation to the ultimate crime [of assault]” …, and we thus conclude that the unlawful imprisonment count merged with the assault count… . People v James, 1314, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Criteria for Review of a Zoning Amendment Explained

In upholding the propriety of the amendment, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for review of a zoning amendment:

It is well settled that a zoning amendment enjoys a “strong presumption of validity” …, and the decision of defendant Common Council of the City to amend the zoning ordinance should not be disturbed where, as here, the amendment is in accordance with the City’s comprehensive plan … .  Further, “[c]ompliance with the statutory requirement is measured . . . in light of the long-standing principle that one who challenges such a legislative act bears a heavy burden” … .  “ ‘If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control’ ” … . “Thus, where the plaintiff fails to establish a clear conflict with the comprehensive plan, the zoning classification must be upheld” … .  Restuccio…v City of Oswego…, 1284, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

, , , ,

Eugenics Argument Should Be Rejected in a Lead-Paint Poisoning Case/Notice Criteria Explained

In a lead-paint poisoning case, the Fourth Department determined that the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to preclude the defendant from “claiming socioeconomic, genetic, eugenic or euthenics alternative and/or negating cause[s]” was not appealable. But Justice Fahey made it clear in a concurring opinion that the eugenics argument should be rejected.  In addition the Fourth Department explained the notice criteria in lead-paint cases:

We note at the outset that the appeal from the order insofar as it denied that part of the motion seeking to “preclud[e] defendants’ attorneys and hired experts from claiming socioeconomic, genetic, eugenic or euthenics alternative and/or negating cause[s]” must be dismissed.  “ ‘[A]n evidentiary ruling, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission’ ”… .

[Justice Fahey, in a concurring opinion, wrote:] … I am troubled by the concept that an individual’s family history may be relevant to establishing a baseline for the purpose of measuring cognitive disability or delay.  I acknowledge that an explanation for cognitive problems may arise from one’s personal history, but as a conceptual and general matter I cannot agree with the principle of the eugenics defense that defendants propose here.  To my mind, the family of a plaintiff in a lead paint case does not put its medical history and conditions at issue, and the attempt to establish biological characteristics as a defense to diminished intelligence, i.e., a eugenics argument, cannot be countenanced and is something I categorically reject.

[With respect to notice, the Fourth Department explained:] .  “It is well settled that in order for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” … .  Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether defendants had notice of the dangerous lead paint condition in the subject apartment “for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” …  With respect to constructive notice, we note that the Court of Appeals in Chapman v Silber (97 NY2d 9, 15) wrote that constructive notice of a hazardous, lead-based paint condition may be established by proof “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before leadbased interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment.” Heyward v Shanne, 1358, 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