You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

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

 

,

Emotional Injury Can Constitute “Serious Injury” Within the Meaning of the Insurance Law/On-coming Car Crossed Into Plaintiffs’ Lane—Plaintiffs Entitled to Summary Judgment (Re: On-coming Driver’s Negligence Cause of Action) Under the Emergency Doctrine

The Fourth Department noted a question of fact had been raised about whether post-traumatic-stress disorder constituted a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d).  Plaintiffs, husband and wife, were struck head-on when an on-coming car crossed into plaintiff’s lane.  The driver of the on-coming car was trying to avoid a deer which ran into the road. The court also determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the other driver’s negligence action based upon the emergency doctrine, even in the absence of expert evidence:

“[A] causally-related emotional injury, alone or in combination with a physical injury, can constitute a serious injury” …, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) “may constitute such an injury when it is causally related to a motor vehicle accident and demonstrated by objective medical evidence” … . Moreover, “PTSD may be demonstrated without diagnostic testing for purposes of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) by symptoms objectively observed by treating physicians and established by the testimony of the injured plaintiff and others who observe the injured plaintiff” … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs met their initial burden on the issue of serious injury, we conclude that defendants raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion by submitting the records of [plaintiff’s]  psychologist … . * * *

“Under the emergency doctrine, “when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes [the driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context, provided the [driver] has not created the emergency” ‘ … . It is well established that a driver is not required to anticipate that [a] vehicle, traveling in the opposite direction, [will] cross over into his [or her] lane of travel’ ” … . * * * The vehicle operated by decedent entered [plaintiff’s] lane of traffic without warning, and [plaintiff]  applied his brakes and swerved to the right as soon as he saw decedent’s vehicle cross into his lane. The absence of expert evidence on this issue is of no moment inasmuch as, “[i]n a cross-over collision case, a defendant [or a plaintiff seeking dismissal of an affirmative defense] may meet the burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment [or dismissal of the affirmative defense] under the emergency doctrine even when [t]he only evidence in the record concerning [the movant’s] conduct’ is [his or her] own [deposition] testimony” … . Hill v Cash, 2014 NY Slip Op 03058, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Victim’s Statements Admissible as Excited Utterances Despite the Passage of Some Time Before the Statements Were Made

The Fourth Department determined the victim’s statements to an emergency medical technician were admissible as excited utterances even though some time had elapsed between the victim’s treatment and her statements.  The court determined that the stress of the situation had not diminished at the time the statements were made:

It is well settled that “[t]he admissibility of an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court. In making that determination, the court must ascertain whether, at the time the utterance was made, the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still his [or her] reflective faculties, thereby preventing opportunity for deliberation which might lead the declarant to be untruthful. The court must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth. Above all, the decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection” … . Notably, “the time for reflection is not measured in minutes or seconds, but rather is measured by facts” … .

There is no dispute that there was a period of time between the victim’s treatment by the EMT and her statements. During that period of time, however, the victim’s child and niece were still in the apartment with defendant, the man who had kidnapped the victim and beaten her with a loaded gun. We thus conclude that “ ‘at the time the utterance[s were] made [the victim] was in fact under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still . . . her reflective faculties’ . . . , including both the physical and emotional stress of the [kidnapping and] beating earlier administered by defendant[,] . . . the stress of being confined in [an apartment and car] with defendant following the attack,” and the stress of having two small children still in harm’s way… . People v Miller, 191, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

Uninhabited Trailer Met Definition of a “Building” Within the Meaning of the Arson Statute

The Fourth Department determined that a trailer that periodically was used as lodging, although not so used at the time of the fire, constituted a “building” within the meaning of the arson statute:

“The ‘ordinary meaning’ of the term ‘building’ has been alternatively defined as ‘a constructed edifice designed to stand more or less permanently, covering a space of land, usu[ally] covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls, and serving as a dwelling’ . . . , ‘a structure with a roof and walls’ . . . and ‘[a] structure or edifice inclosing a space within its walls and usually, but not necessarily, covered with a roof’ . . . The term generally, though not always, implies the idea of a habitat for a person’s permanent use or an erection connected with his or her permanent use” … .

Inasmuch as the trailer herein was “a constructed edifice enclosed by walls, covered by a roof, designed to stand permanently, and serving a useful purpose, it is included within the ordinary meaning of the word ‘building’ ” … . …In addition to furnishings for sleeping, the trailer had a bathroom and a kitchen. Moreover, the trailer was equipped with a power cord for immediate access to power and a propane tank that could be used to power the refrigerator and heaters. At the time of the arson, the trailer was being used to secure the owners’ property while they were remodeling the inside of their house. In any event, with respect to the trailer’s character as a building in the ordinary sense of the word, it is of no moment that no one was actually residing in the trailer on the day of the incident … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the trailer did not fit within the ordinary meaning of the term, we conclude that it constituted a building under the secondary definition of building contained in the statute, i.e., a “structure . . . used for overnight lodging of persons, or used by persons for carrying on business therein” (Penal Law § 150.00 [1]). Defendant recognized that the trailer was used for overnight lodging “on ‘vacations’ or weekend retreats,” and it is undisputed that defendant had previously rented the trailer as overnight lodging for a period of four months. Although no one was residing in the trailer on the day of the fire, we likewise conclude that such fact does not alter the essential character of the structure as one used for overnight lodging. People v Norcutt, 195, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Favor of Defendant Who Had the Right of Way When Plaintiff Pulled Into Defendant’s Path from a Stop, Even Though there Was Evidence Defendant Was Travelling Slightly Over the Speed Limit/No Evidence Accident Would Have Been Avoided Had the Defendant Been Traveling at the Speed Limit

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that summary judgment was properly granted to defendant truck driver who struck plaintiff’s vehicle as it entered the roadway from a stop.  The truck driver had the right of way (there was no stop sign for the truck driver) and there was evidence the truck was travelling in excess of five miles an hour over the speed limit. The court determined there was no evidence the accident could have been avoided even if the truck had been traveling at the speed limit:

“It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield” (…see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]). Nevertheless, “a driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection . . . but, rather, is bound to use such care to avoid [a] collision as an ordinarily prudent [motorist] would have used under the circumstances” … .

Here, we conclude … that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that defendant was operating his vehicle “ ‘in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing [he] could have done to avoid the collision’ ” … . Defendant testified that he saw plaintiff’s vehicle at the stop sign, braked as soon as he entered the intersection, and turned to the left “microseconds” after he braked. Despite defendant’s efforts to avoid the accident, his truck struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle on the passenger’s side. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, “the fact that [defendant] may have been driving at a speed in excess of five miles per hour over the posted speed limit . . . is inconsequential inasmuch as there is no indication that [defendant] could have avoided the accident even if [he] had been traveling at or below the posted speed limit” … . Heltz v Barratt…, 184, 4th Dept 3-28-14

Similar (but not identical) facts, same result, over a dissent, in Johnson v Time Warner…, 175, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Defendant’s Flight in His Vehicle, Nearly Striking an Officer, Severed Any Connection with the Initial Detention and Evidence Discarded from the Vehicle Was Properly Seized

The Fourth Department determined an anonymous tip coupled with the police officer’s observations justified the officer’s request that defendant get out of his vehicle—a level three encounter.  Defendant’s subsequent flight in the vehicle, nearly striking an officer, severed any connection between the initial detention and the seizure of evidence discarded from the vehicle:

A police officer testified at the suppression hearing that he received an anonymous tip regarding drug activity taking place at a certain location. Upon proceeding to the location, the officer found defendant sitting in a parked vehicle, which was similar to the description of the vehicle given by the anonymous caller. As the officer spoke with defendant, he noticed what appeared to be a pile of cigar tobacco on the ground outside the vehicle, and the officer knew, based on his training and experience, that emptying a cigar was a common method of preparing a marihuana cigar, or a “blunt.” When the officer asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, defendant instead started the vehicle and sped off, almost striking another officer who was approaching the vehicle on foot. During the ensuing chase, defendant discarded a bag out of the passenger-side window. The bag was later recovered by the police and was found to contain a loaded weapon and marihuana.

The officer’s initial approach of defendant and request for identification was a permissible level one encounter under People v De Bour … . Although the officer’s request that defendant exit the parked vehicle elevated the situation to a level three encounter under De Bour …, we conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in illegal activity based on the anonymous tip and the officer’s observation of drug activity, i.e., the pile of cigar tobacco on the ground … . In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was unlawfully detained, we conclude that his criminal conduct in speeding off and almost striking the second officer—conduct for which defendant was convicted of reckless endangerment in the second degree—“severed any causal connection between the unlawful detention and the subsequently-acquired evidence” … . People v Wofford, 252, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

Inadequate Supervision and Unsanitary Living Conditions Warranted a Neglect Finding

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court and found the three and a half year old child to be neglected.  The child wandered off out of the house and was found by a neighbor one and a half blocks away .  And the child had been living in highly unsanitary conditions:

…[A] neglected child is defined as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his [or her] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[t]he statute . . . imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . . First, there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child . . . Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances” … . Moreover, it is well established that “the statutory requirement of imminent danger . . . does not require proof of actual injury” …, and that “[a] single incident where the parent’s judgment was strongly impaired and the child exposed to a risk of substantial harm can sustain a finding of neglect” … . * * *

As relevant to the second basis for neglect alleged in the petition, a neglected child is defined as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his [or her] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, [or] shelter . . . though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). We conclude that the court’s determination that the child was not neglected based on the condition of the mother’s apartment lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. * * * Under the … circumstances, we conclude that the unsanitary and unsafe condition of the mother’s apartment posed an imminent danger of impairment to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Matter of Raven B, 77, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

Resident Hosts of a Party Had No Duty to Supervise 18-Year-Old Plaintiff Who Became Voluntarily Intoxicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, over a partial dissent, the Fourth Department addressed many issues (not all mentioned here) stemming from plaintiff’s fall from a bathroom window at a psuedo-fraternity house where the “resident defendants” rented rooms and were responsible for cleaning the bathrooms.  The Fourth Department determined the resident defendants had a duty to maintain the property in a safe condition and to give warning of unsafe conditions that are not open and obvious. There was a question of fact whether the window, which was only 13 inches above the floor and had no screen or fall-prevention device, was a dangerous condition. There was a question of fact whether the hazard was open and obvious. There was a question of fact whether the resident defendants had actual or constructive notice of the hazard.  The court, however, agreed with the defendants that the cause of action based upon an alleged duty to supervise the 18-year-old plaintiff should have been dismissed:

Hosts of parties where alcohol is consumed in a home that they either own or occupy risk exposure to liability under two separate and distinct theories of negligence. One theory is based on their duties as owners or occupiers of the premises “to control the conduct of third persons for the protection of others on the premises” …, and the other theory is based on the duty of adults to “provide[] adequate supervision for minor guests who bec[ome] intoxicated at their home” … . * * *

The issue in this case, insofar as it relates to the negligent supervision claim, is whether the resident defendants had a duty to the adult plaintiff to supervise him and to protect him from injuring himself as a result of his voluntary intoxication. Any duty of the resident defendants to protect the intoxicated plaintiff from himself would come from the fact that they hosted the party, i.e., they provided the alcohol. Otherwise, plaintiff could sue anyone attending the party for failing to supervise him. …The Court of Appeals ….noted that the courts of New York had rejected “any argument that a duty exists to protect a consumer of alcohol from the results of his or her own voluntary conduct” … . We thus conclude that, because plaintiff was not a minor entrusted to the care of the resident defendants, the resident defendants did not have a duty to protect plaintiff from the results of his own voluntary intoxication.  Parslow … v Leake…, 1341, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

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