You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

No Liability for Injury to Child Who Suddenly Darted Out Into Traffic

The Fourth Department determined all causes of action arising from a child’s darting out into traffic should be dismissed. There was no evidence the driver who struck the child (Hosley) was negligent.  And there was no evidence the adults in the car from which the child darted into traffic (Ricks and Still) were negligent.  The driver parked the car intending to escort the child to her school bus:

Specifically, the evidence establishes as a matter of law that, “without looking in the direction of oncoming traffic” …, the child darted from behind the front of Still’s parked vehicle, “directly into the path of” Hosley’s vehicle, leaving Hosley “unable to avoid contact with the [child]” …, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the record does not establish that there is an issue of fact whether Hosley operated her vehicle in a negligent manner. Rather, the record establishes as a matter of law that Hosley acted as a reasonably prudent person when she slowed her rate of speed immediately upon seeing the parked vehicle ahead, and that she proceeded with caution while attempting to pass it safely on the left … .

With respect to the motion of Ricks and Still, we note that “[t]he operator of a private passenger vehicle owes to his passengers a duty of reasonable care [in] providing a safe place to alight” … . Ricks and Still met their initial burden on their motion by establishing that Ricks did not breach that duty to the child when, intending to escort the child, he parked the vehicle against the curb on a side street. Plaintiff’s “[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations” asserted in opposition to the motion failed to raise an issue of fact … . Green v Hosley, 2014 NY Slip Op 03066, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the statutory “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b), not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the actions of the driver of a town truck..  The driver, Grzybek,  was using a plow to remove water and debris from a service road.  The water sprayed onto the windshield of the truck, obstructing the driver’s vision and causing the driver to cross into an oncoming lane, striking plaintiffs’ vehicle. Because the driver was not assigned the task of removing water and debris from the road, the dissenters argued the driver was not engaged in “work” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) and, therefore, the ordinary negligence standard, not the “reckless disregard” standard of section 1103 (b), applied:

…[T]he statute exempts “all [municipal] vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . from the rules of the road” … . The statute does not state that it exempts only those vehicles engaged in “assigned” work. Plowing water and debris from a road is work, and that work is within the scope of Grzybek’s duties. Plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise. Rather, their contention is that the statute applies only when the vehicles are “performing their assigned work” and that Grzybek was not assigned to plow water and debris from the service road on the day of the accident. In our view, interpreting the statute as the dissent and plaintiffs suggest improperly adds language to the statute by qualifying the word “work.” It is not the function of this Court to usurp the power of the legislature and rewrite a clear and unambiguous statute. Aside from statutory exceptions not relevant herein, all municipal vehicles actually engaged in work are exempt from the rules of the road. Inasmuch as Grzybek’s vehicle was actually engaged in work, albeit unassigned work, the reckless disregard standard of care set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies as a matter of law. * * *

…[W]e conclude that plaintiffs, in opposition to defendants’ cross motion, submitted evidence from which a jury could find that Grzybek “had intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk “that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” and [did] so with conscious indifference to the outcome’ ” … . Gawron v Town of Cheektowaga, 2014 NY Slip Op 03051, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Causes of Action Against County Personnel Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision Should Not Have Been Dismissed–Plaintiff’s Decedent Was Killed at the Hands of Her Mother and Half-Brother—Complaint Alleged County’s Negligence in Failing to Protect Plaintiff’s Decedent

In a lawsuit alleging county personnel, including deputy sheriffs, were negligent resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent at the hands of her mother and half-brother, the Fourth Department determined: (1) governmental immunity could not be determined at the pleading stage because whether the government’s actions were discretionary (and therefore immune) was a question of fact; (2) absent a local law to the contrary, a sheriff can not be held vicariously responsible for the actions of deputy sheriffs under the doctrine of respondeat superior; (3) the causes of action for negligent hiring, training and supervision of county personnel should not have been dismissed; (4) the notices of claim were sufficient to notify the county of the negligent hiring, training and supervision causes of action; and (5) the notice of claim was not defective for failing to name the sheriff in his official capacity.  Mosey v County of Erie, 2014 NY Slip Op 03041, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

Defect Not Trivial as a Matter of Law

The Fourth Department determined defendant failed to establish a defect in pavement was trivial as a matter of law:

Here, we conclude that defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the defect was trivial and nonactionable as a matter of law … . The photographs submitted in support of defendant’s motion depict a lengthy edge in the pavement that was more than two-thirds of an inch deep and spanned the width of the painted walking area adjacent to the designated handicapped parking space … . Defendant also submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which she testified that her right foot caught on “a quite high ledge” in the pavement at the rear of the parking space … . Although defendant characterizes the edge as “a small, rounded lip in the pavement,” the photographs depict crumbling asphalt, and the edge appears to be irregular, jagged and abrupt as opposed to gradual …, where the trivial defect involved ” a small area’ ” of a ” cracked and crumbly’ ” curb that “had no measurable depth,’ ” plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the photographs in this case, particularly the photographs depicting the area closest to plaintiff’s vehicle, suggest a measurable edge in the pavement that could pose a tripping hazard. Lupa v City of Oswego, 2014 NY Slip Op 03055, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Court Review of Sufficiency of Evidence Before a Grand Jury Explained

The Fourth Department determined the circumstantial evidence of constructive possession of a package containing drugs was legally sufficient to support the indictment.  The court explained how the sufficiency of evidence before a grand jury is analyzed:

On a motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1) (b), “the inquiry of the reviewing court is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence; the court may not examine the adequacy of the proof to establish reasonable cause” … . The “reviewing court must consider ‘whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury’ ” … . In the context of grand jury proceedings, “legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Thus, we must determine “ ‘whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes,’ and whether ‘the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference’ ” … .  People v Forsythe, 359, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Error to Allow Prosecutor to Elicit Testimony that Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Fourth Department noted that the prosecutor should not have been allowed to elicit testimony that defendant invoked his right to counsel:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing the People to elicit testimony that defendant invoked his right to counsel …, but we conclude that reversal is not required; the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “inasmuch as there is no reasonable possibility that the error[] might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … .  People v Daniels, 360, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

Response to Jury Note Without Notice to Defendant Required Reversal and a New Trial

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined the trial court committed a mode of proceedings error by responding to a jury request for exhibits without notice to the defendant:

CPL 310.20 (1) provides that, upon retiring to deliberate, the jurors may take with them “[a]ny exhibits received in evidence at the trial which the court, after according the parties an opportunity to be heard upon the matter, in its discretion permits them to take” (emphasis added). CPL 310.30 provides that, “[a]t any time during its deliberation, the jury may request the court for further instruction or information with respect to . . . the content or substance of any trial evidence . . . Upon such a request, the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant, must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper” (emphasis added). Here, as part of its instructions to the jury, the court informed the jurors that “[e]xhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon your request, for your inspection and consideration.” The court, however, neither elicited on the record whether defendant, who proceeded pro se at trial, waived his right to be present when such a request was made nor informed defendant on the record that the exhibits would be given to the jury without reconvening. Prior to receiving the jury’s verdict, the court indicated that it had received a jury note “that has been marked as a Court Exhibit which was just the jury requesting certain items of evidence that had already been admitted and received in evidence, that they were provided with those items pursuant to discussions we had and what they were told before deliberations.” We note that those “discussions” do not appear to have been transcribed, and no agreement by defendant to forego the right to be present for the receipt of jury notes appears in the record before us. Inasmuch as the court failed to obtain defendant’s express agreement waiving his right to be present for the reading of the jury note at issue, we conclude that the court committed a mode of proceedings error when it provided exhibits to the jury in response to a jury note without notice to defendant, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial … . People v Roberites, 164.1, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

No Basis in Law for “Automatic Override” Based Upon a Prior Sex Crime Conviction to Raise Sex Offender Status Above the Presumptive Level (SORA)

The Fourth Department reversed County Court’s determination that defendant, who was a presumptive level two sex offender, should be classified as a level three offender on the basis of a prior felony conviction of a sex crime.  The County Court described the authority for the upward departure as an “automatic override.”  The Fourth Department noted that an “automatic override” does not exist in this context and explained the criteria for an upward departure:

Based upon the total risk factor score of 85 points on the risk assessment instrument, defendant was presumptively classified as a level two risk. County Court determined that defendant was a level three risk based on the automatic override for a prior felony conviction of a sex crime. That was error. “[N]o basis in law exists for . . . an automatic override [to] increase[] defendant’s presumptive risk level two designation to risk level three” … . “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . “ ‘There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance[s] to warrant an upward or downward departure’ ” … . People v Moore, 357, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

Petitioners Failed to Show the Noise from a Train Affected Them Differently From the Public at Large/Therefore the Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Raise a Challenge to the Source of the Noise Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act/Purpose of the Standing Requirement in this Context Explained

The Fourth Department determined the petitioners did not have standing to bring  a proceeding to raise a challenge under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because the noise complaints stemming from a train running through town did not affect the petitioners differently from the public at large.  The train runs through the town pursuant to resolutions allowing the town to sell excess municipal water to a buyer in Pennsylvania.  The Fourth Department noted that the complaints related solely to the operation of the train, not to the operation of the “transloading facility” where the water is loaded onto the trains:

There is no dispute that “[c]ourts surely do provide a forum for airing issues of vital public concern, but so do public hearings and publicly elected legislatures, both of which have functioned here. By contrast to those forums, a litigant must establish its standing in order to seek judicial review” … . “With the growth of litigation to enforce public values, such as protection of the environment, the subject of standing has become a troublesome one for the courts” … . “ ‘[I]njury in fact’ has become the touchstone” for standing …, because “[t]he existence of an injury in fact–an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated–ensures that the party seeking review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action” … .

It is well established that “[s]tanding requirements ‘are not mere pleading requirements but [instead are] an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case[,]’ and therefore ‘each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof’ ” … . Where, as here, the proceeding does not involve a “zoning-related issue . . . , there is no presumption of standing to raise” a challenge under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ([SEQRA] ECL art 8) based solely on a party’s proximity … . In such a situation, the party seeking to establish standing must establish that the injury of which he or she complains “falls within the ‘zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected” …, and that he or she “would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … .

While we agree with petitioners that noise falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by SEQRA (…see generally ECL 8-0105 [6]), we conclude that respondents met their burden of establishing as a matter of law that [petitioner] did not sustain an injury that was different from that of the public at large. Matter of Sierra Club… v Village of Painted Post, 202, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Commissioner of Education Has Primary Jurisdiction Over Dispute About the Appropriate Pay for a School Principal Whose Position Was Abolished But Who Was Subsequently Assigned an Assistant Principal Position/Petition for Stay of Arbitration Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement Should Have Been Granted/Arbitration Prohibited by Public Policy

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration.  A former principal whose position was abolished was hired as an assistant principal.  A grievance was filed by respondent on the former principal’s behalf contending that her new position warranted the same level of pay she had received in the abolished position. After the grievance was denied by petitioner, the respondent demanded arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.  The Fourth Department determined the demand for arbitration should have been denied because the matter must be determined by the Commission of Education in the first instance:

It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, the court is concerned only with the threshold determination of arbitrability, and not with the merits of the underlying claim (see CPLR 7501…). In making the threshold determination of arbitrability, the court applies a two-part test. It first determines whether “there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” … . “If no prohibition exists,[the court then determines] whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement” … .

Here, we agree with petitioner that the Commissioner of Education has primary jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute, and that arbitration is therefore prohibited by public policy. As we have previously noted, “ ‘the Commissioner of Education has the specialized knowledge and expertise to resolve the factual issue of whether the . . . former position and the new position are similar within the meaning of Education Law § [2510 (3) (a)]’ ” … . Based on his or her specialized knowledge and expertise, the Commissioner of Education should “resolve, in the first instance,” the issue of fact whether two positions are sufficiently similar under Education Law § 2510 … . Matter of Arbitration …, 285, 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