You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

Florida Choice of Law Provision Re: Covenants Not to Compete Unenforceable in New York/the Nonsolicitation Covenant at Issue Was Overbroad and Unenforceable

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Whalen, the Fourth Department determined that Florida law re: covenants not to compete was “truly obnoxious” to New York law and the nonsolicitation covenant at issue was overbroad and unenforceable:

…[W]e conclude that Florida law prohibiting courts from considering the hardship imposed on the person against whom enforcement is sought is “ ‘truly obnoxious’ ” to New York public policy …, inasmuch as under New York law, a restrictive covenant that imposes an undue hardship on the employee is invalid and unenforceable for that reason ‘’’ .  Furthermore, while New York judicially disfavors such restrictive covenants, and New York courts will carefully scrutinize such agreements and enforce them “only to the extent that they are reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer and not unduly harsh or burdensome to the one restrained”…, Florida law requires courts to construe such restrictive covenants in favor of the party seeking to protect its legitimate business interests (see Florida Statutes § 542.335 [1] [h]). * * *

A non-solicitation covenant is overbroad and therefore unenforceable “if it seeks to bar the employee from soliciting or providing services to clients with whom the employee never acquired a relationship through his or her employment” … .  Here, the non-solicitation covenant purported to restrict [defendant] from, inter alia, soliciting, diverting, servicing, or accepting, either directly or indirectly, “any insurance or bond business of any kind or character from any person, firm, corporation, or other entity that is a customer or account of the New York offices of the Company during the term of [the] Agreement” for two years following the termination of Johnson’s employment, without regard to whether defendant acquired a relationship with those clients. We conclude that the language of the non-solicitation covenant renders it overbroad and unenforceable … . Brown and Brown Inc… v Johnson…, 1109, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

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

 

,

Showup Identification of the Hand-Cuffed Defendant Made in the Police Station Parking Lot 90 Minutes After the Crime Should Have Been Suppressed

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and sent the matter back for a Wade hearing to determine whether the eyewitness had an independent basis for his in-court identification of the defendant.  The show-up identification made by the eyewitness was deemed invalid and should have been suppressed:

…[D]efendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress showup identification testimony with respect to him.  We agree. “Showup identifications are disfavored, since they are suggestive by their very nature” …. .  Here, the showup identification procedure was conducted in the parking lot of a police station, approximately 90 minutes after the occurrence of the crime, while defendant was handcuffed and while uniformed police officers and ambulance personnel were in the parking lot.  The totality of the circumstances of this showup identification procedure presses judicial tolerance beyond its limits …, and we conclude under the facts and circumstances of this case that the showup identification procedure was infirm… .  People v Burnice, 1343, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

Banging On Door of Closed Restaurant While Wearing a Mask and Carrying a BB Gun Was Sufficient to Support Conviction for Attempted Robbery

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction for attempted robbery.  Defendant, wearing a mask and armed with a BB gun, banged on the back door of a restaurant, which was closed. One of the restaurant employees called 911.  On appeal the defendant argued that the proof was not sufficient to demonstrate an intent to forcibly steal property and therefore could not support an attempted robbery conviction:

Although defendant’s mere entry into a store with a gun does not “unequivocally establish that he intended to commit a robbery” …, the evidence also established that none of the Wendy’s employees knew defendant; the restaurant was not open to the public when defendant sought entry; defendant and his accomplice were armed with BB guns that appeared to be firearms; defendant and his accomplice wore masks and gloves; and defendant had a backpack into which stolen property could be put.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must …, we conclude that there is a “ ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person’ ” to the conclusion reached by the trial court, i.e., that defendant was trying to gain entry into the restaurant with the intent to steal property forcibly from someone inside … . Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial …, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence… . People v Lamont, 1090, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

Determination Whether Defendant Is a Youthful Offender Is Mandatory for Every Eligible Youth

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined the sentencing court did not make a finding whether the defendant was a youthful offender, as it was required to do.  The matter was sent back for the determination:

“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]).  The Court of Appeals has concluded that, by the use of the word “must,” the legislature has made “a policy choice that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … .  “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . [issue] as a denial thereof” … .  We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record “a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender” … . People v Koons, 1077, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

,

Hearsay Statements Exonerating Defendant Properly Excluded as Not Meeting the Reliability Requirement for a “Statement Against Penal Interest”

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined the accomplice’s hearsay statements exonerating the defendant were properly excluded from evidence because they did not meet the “reliability” requirement for “statements against penal interest:”

We … note that the Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that there are four components to the declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule: “(1) the declarant must be unavailable to testify by reason of death, absence from the jurisdiction or refusal to testify on constitutional grounds; (2) the declarant must be aware at the time the statement is made that it is contrary to penal interest; (3) the declarant must have competent knowledge of the underlying facts; and (4) there must be sufficient proof independent of the utterance to assure its reliability” ….  Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence sets forth a fifth component, i.e., that the declarant “had no probable motive to misrepresent the facts” (Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-403 [Farrell 11th Ed 2008]).  To the extent that component should be part of our calculus here, we conclude that it weights our determination even more heavily in the People’s favor. People v McArthur, 1249, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

Question of Fact About Negligent Operation of a Ski Lift

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact about whether the operators of a ski lift were negligent in failing to notice plaintiff’s skis were entangled as they approached the point where they were to get off the lift.  Supreme Court had determined the cause of action was prohibited by the assumption of the risk doctrine:

It is beyond debate that there is inherent risk of injury to participants in downhill skiing . . . Moreover, there is undoubtedly some risk of injury inherent in entering, riding and exiting from a chairlift at a ski resort.  However, . . . the latter is not of such magnitude as to eliminate all duty of care and thereby insulate the owner from claims of negligent supervision and training of the lift operator or negligent maintenance and operation of the lift itself since such negligence may unduly enhance the level of the risk assumed” (…see General Obligations Law § 18-101…). …

We conclude … that defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact whether they were negligent in their operation of the chairlift, thereby unduly enhancing the risk to plaintiff … . … Upon reaching the sign directing passengers to prepare to unload, plaintiff noticed that her skis were entangled with her son’s skis.  Defendants did not slow or stop the chairlift, and plaintiff was unable to unload from the chairlift before it passed the unloading area.  Plaintiff was injured when she either jumped or was thrown from the chairlift before it reached the safety gate that would have stopped the chairlift.  Tone v Song Mountain Ski Center…, 1377, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

,

Plaintiff Did Not Raise Question of Fact About Whether Municipality Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect and Was Affirmatively Negligent

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the municipality created a dangerous condition by placing a piece of plywood over a hole in a sidewalk.  There was evidence the municipality had received a work order for the area in question and the area was inspected but no problem was found.  There was no evidence the municipality was responsible for placing the plywood over the hole:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court properly determined that the City’s prior written notice requirement applies inasmuch as the area where the accident occurred is part of the sidewalk … .  Because the City established in support of its motion that it did not receive prior written notice, the burden shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to that requirement … .  We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that plaintiff met that burden by establishing that such an exception applies, i.e., that the City was affirmatively negligent … .  Although plaintiff submitted a preaccident “work order” to the City for the location in question, she failed to adduce any evidence that the City placed the plywood over the hole in which she fell.  Further, the City established that, in response to the “work order,” it dispatched an employee who testified that he inspected the area in question, found nothing wrong with it, and performed no work. Thus, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact “whether the City created a defective condition within the meaning of the exception” to defeat defendants’ motion … . Pulver v City of Fulton …, 1086, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

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