You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

Finding by Workers’ Compensation Law Judge Precluded Suit Under Labor Law and Common Law Negligence

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined the finding that no accident occurred by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge precluded plaintiff from suing under the Labor Law and common law negligence for an injury allegedly incurred while working on a house.  The court rejected the argument that the Workers’ Compensation proceeding dealt soley with the existence or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same” … . Thus, “[t]he quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action” … .Here, defendant met his burden on his motion by establishing the “identicality and decisiveness of the issue” decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding… . Ridge v Gold, et al, 1300, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

Probable Cause to Search Vehicle for a Weapon After Defendant’s Arrest Provided by Identified Citizen Informant

The Fourth Department determined a weapon was properly seized from a vehicle after defendant’s valid arrest based on information from an identified citizen informant:

It is well settled that, “ ‘where police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that [it] may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted, they may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, including any containers found therein’ ” … .Here, as noted, there is no dispute that defendant was lawfully stopped and arrested. Rather, the issue before us is whether the police lawfully searched the vehicle defendant was driving. Even assuming, without deciding, that the police did not conduct a lawful inventory search, we conclude that a search was authorized because the police had probable cause to believe that a gun was inside the vehicle. Probable cause arose from the information provided to the police by the identified citizen informant, who stated that she observed one of the occupants of defendant’s vehicle in possession of what appeared to be a handgun used in the abduction of her boyfriend. “An identified citizen informant is presumed to be personally reliable” …  and, here, the informant had a sufficient basis of knowledge inasmuch as she personally observed the weapon in question… . People v Holmes, 95, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

Grand Jury Proceedings Not Rendered Defective by Prosecutor’s Introduction of New Evidence After First True Bill Voted

The Fourth Department determined an indictment should not have been dismissed.  The grand jury proceedings were not rendered defective when the prosecutor reopened the proceedings to introduce more evidence after the grand jury voted the first true bill:

… [T]he court held that the grand jury proceedings were defective because the People, without seeking a formal vote of at least 12 members of the grand jury, submitted additional evidence after the grand jury had voted the first true bill, but before an indictment had been filed. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, Cade [74 NY2d 410] does not hold that a grand jury must vote to vacate a prior true bill that has not been filed as an indictment in order to reopen the proceedings and introduce additional evidence in support of proposed charges that were not previously considered by the grand jury … . Indeed, in Cade, the Court of Appeals noted that there are reasons, other than a prosecutor’s belief that the evidence before the grand jury was inadequate or that dismissal was likely, “why a prosecutor or a [g]rand [j]ury would choose to reopen the evidence. The prosecutor might, for example, supplement the evidence to bring additional or higher charges” … . Moreover, unlike the procedure that was in any event approved in Cade, here the prosecutor never requested that the grand jury reconsider the lower charge of assault in the second degree in light of the additional evidence … . Thus, inasmuch as there was no second presentment of that charge, the grand jury was not required to vacate its prior vote. We therefore conclude that the integrity of the grand jury was not impaired … . In view of our conclusion, we do not address the issue whether defendant was prejudiced by the procedure employed here. People v Grimes, 131, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, ,

Untimely Demand for Reinstatement Warranted Dismissal of Action to Compel Reinstatement

The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s action to compel reinstatement in his job as a policeman was untimely.  Petitioner should have made a demand for reinstatement within four months of learning he was not being held responsible criminally or civilly for the acts of misconduct alleged against him:

“Where, as here, a public employee is discharged without a hearing, the four-month limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 begins to run when the employee’s demand for reinstatement is refused” … . “[T]he demand must be made within a reasonable time after the right to make the demand occurs or . . . within a reasonable time after [petitioner] becomes aware of the facts which give rise to his [or her] right of relief” … , and we note that the four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been “treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand” … . Here, we conclude that petitioner’s right to demand reinstatement to his position arose, at the latest, on or about December 6, 2011, when he received a letter from the District Attorney stating that he bore no civil or criminal responsibility for the acts of misconduct alleged against him, and that the matter would not be presented to the grand jury … . Nevertheless, petitioner did not demand reinstatement to his position until approximately nine months later, on August 31, 2012, well over the four-month guideline applied in Devens … . Thus, “it was [well] within the court’s discretion to determine that petitioner unreasonably delayed in making the demand” … . Matter of Norton v City of Hornell…, 256, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200, or Under Common Law Negligence/No Control Over Work or Responsibility for the Premises

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined a construction manager was not liable as an agent of the owner under Labor Law 241(6) because the manager did not control the activity which resulted in the injury.  In addition the court determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should hav been dismissed:

A construction manager may be liable as an agent of the owner if “the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “ ‘Defendant established as a matter of law that it was not an agent of the owner because the owner had not delegated to it the authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work’ ” … . Pursuant to the express terms of the contract between defendant and the District, defendant “had no control over or responsibility for the safety of the workers at the construction site” … . The deposition testimony and affidavits submitted by defendant established that defendant acted in accordance with its authority under the contract, i.e., coordinating the schedules of the contractors and ensuring that their work complied with the requirements of the construction documents, and did nothing more. * * *

“Where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . On the other hand, where the “ ‘plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed[ ] but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, [an owner or] general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’  … . Regardless of which theory applies here, defendant was not an agent of the owner and “was not responsible either for the performance of [plaintiff’s] work or the premises on which that work was undertaken” … . Hargrave…v LeChase Construction Services LLC, 1373, 4th Dept. 3-21-14

 

, ,

Under the Unambiguous Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff, a Retiree Who Was No Longer a Union Member, Was Not Subject to the Grievance-Filing Requirement and Could Sue Directly

The Fourth Department determined a retired employee was not required to go through the grievance procedure outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement because the unambiguous language of the CBA did not apply to retirees no longer union members:

In relevant part, the CBA defines the term “grievance” broadly as “a controversy, dispute or difference arising out of the interpretation or application of this contract.” The first step of the grievance procedure requires either the union or a “member” to present the grievance in writing. “It is well established that[,] when reviewing a contract, ‘[p]articular words should be considered, not as if isolated from the context, but in the light of the obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties manifested thereby’ ” … . Furthermore, we“must give the words and phrases employed their plain meaning” … . Elsewhere in the CBA, the word “member” is used interchangeably with the word “employee,” and several CBA provisions that apply to “members,” such as provisions for holiday pay and annual physicals, clearly affect only active employees. In addition, the CBA provides that the Village recognizes the union “as the exclusive representative for collective negotiations with respect to salaries, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment of all full-time and part-time employees” (emphasis added).

Giving the word “member” its plain meaning, and interpreting the contract as a whole, we agree with plaintiff that the word “member” means a member of the union. It is undisputed that plaintiff ceased to be a member of the union after his retirement. Thus, according to the clear and unambiguous terms of the CBA, plaintiff, who was no longer a “member” of the union when he became aggrieved, could not file a grievance. Buff v Village of Manlius…, 37, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

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

 

Questions of Fact About Whether Covenants Restricting Use of Land Were Violated

The Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria for covenants restricting the use of land:

The law favors the free and unrestricted use of real property, and therefore covenants restricting such use are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them … . Plaintiffs, as the parties seeking to enforce the covenants at issue, were required to “prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the scope . . . of the restriction” … . In addition, “where the language used in a restrictive covenant is equally susceptible of two interpretations, the less restrictive interpretation must be adopted” … . Viewing the language of the covenants in light of those rules, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to establish that the structure erected by defendant violates the covenant prohibiting erection or maintenance of a fence … . We further conclude that plaintiffs failed to establish that the structure violates the covenant prohibiting the obstruction of established trails or roads or otherwise interferes with plaintiffs’ rights of access to White Lake … . Rather, triable issues of fact remain whether the covenants at issue were intended to prohibit the structure in question and thus whether defendant violated those covenants… . Halfond… v White Lake Shores Association Inc, 1380, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

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