You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Decedent’s Divorce Did Not Invalidate Provisions of Her 1996 Will Which Made Her Former Father-In-Law the Alternate Executor and Alternate Beneficiary/Proof Was Insufficient to Demonstrate the 1996 Will Had Been Revoked by a Lost Will

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, over a lengthy dissent by Justice Peradotto, the Fourth Department affirmed Surrogate’s Court’s determination that a 1996 will must be admitted to probate and any provisions of the will not affected by decedent’s divorce must be honored.  The petitioner was the (divorced) decedent’s former father-in-law who was named alternate executor and alternate beneficiary of the 1996 will.  Under New York law, decedent’s divorce revoked the testamentary distribution to her ex-husband and revoked her ex-husband’s appointment as executor, but the provisions of the will relating to decedent’s former father-in-law remained viable. The objectants argued that the 1996 will had been revoked by a subsequent will which was lost. The Fourth Department found that there was insufficient evidence presented at the hearing to show that the lost will was duly executed and attested and, therefore, there was insufficient evidence the prior will had been revoked:

Pursuant to New York law, the testamentary distribution to the ex-husband and his appointment as executor are revoked, but all other provisions of the will remain valid (see EPTL 5-1.4 [a], [b]…). * * *

We are constrained to conclude that the evidence at the hearing is insufficient to establish that the Lost Will was duly executed and attested … .  With respect to New York’s EPTL 3-2.1, there was no testimony that the document was signed or acknowledged by decedent in the presence of the witnesses. Furthermore, there was no evidence that decedent declared to the witnesses that the document was her will.  Finally, although the neighbor testified that decedent’s signature appeared on the document, there was no evidence that the signature was at the end of the document. Matter of Lewis…, 1170, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

,

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

 

Imposition of a Recreation Fee on New Construction In Lieu of Land for a Park Was Proper Pursuant to Town Law 277

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have annulled the town’s imposition of a recreation fee upon each apartment and townhouse in a subdivision plat, in lieu of land for a park, pursuant to Town Law 277:

Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has rejected the notion that section 277 (4) is a “taxing” statute …, we must decide whether respondent’s determination that the Town needs “additional funds to develop parks and recreational facilities,” not additional land, is consistent with the legislative purpose of that statute.  The Court of Appeals has recognized that section 277 (4) “ ‘represents a legislative reaction to the threatened loss of open land available for park and recreational purposes resulting from the process of development in suburban areas and the continuing demands of the growing populations in such areas for additional park and recreational facilities’ ” … .  In that vein, section 277 (4) (b) provides that a set-aside of land for a park or other recreational purposes may be required if the planning board has made a finding that a proper case for such land exists.  That section further provides that “[s]uch findings shall include an evaluation of the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the town based on projected population growth to which the particular subdivision plat will contribute” (id. [emphasis added]).  Section 277 (4) (c) provides that, in the event the planning board determines that a park may not be suitably located on the subdivision plat, “[a]ny monies required by the planning board in lieu of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes, pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall be deposited into a trust fund to be used by the town exclusively for park, playground or other recreational purposes, including the acquisition of property” (emphasis added).

Here, the court concluded that the assessment of recreation fees was unjustified because respondent found that the Town did not need more recreational land.  As noted, however, Town Law § 277 (4) provides that concern over population demand for additional recreational facilities and the unsuitability of the plat at issue may justify the assessment of recreation fees.  Furthermore, contrary to petitioners’ contention, the application of section 277 involves a town-based review, not a plat-based review.  We thus conclude that the court erred in determining that respondent acted irrationally in imposing the recreation fees at issue… . Matter of Legacy at Fairways LLC… v Planning Board of Town of Victor, 1063, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

Res Ipsa Loquitur Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question of Fact About Whether Handrail Which Came Loose Was In Exclusive Control of Defendant

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s res ipsa loquitur case of action.  Plaintiff was injured when a handrail came loose from the wall in her apartment building:

Supreme Court … erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant established as a matter of law that it did not have exclusive control of the handrail, i.e., one of the necessary conditions herein for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ….  We conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether the handrail was in the exclusive control of defendant, and thus that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion … .  …

“The exclusive control requirement . . . is that evidence must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it . . . The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than defendant’s negligence” … .  Here, plaintiff established that access to the internal stairway is limited to the residents of the three units in the building and defendant’s maintenance staff …, and a former maintenance staff person testified that railings in other buildings had become loose and were tightened as needed.  We therefore conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact “that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it”… . Herbst v Lakewood Shores Condominium Association, 1337, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

Restaurant Chair Collapsed: No Question of Fact About Constructive Notice of Condition of the Chair/Res Ipsa Loquitur Did Not Apply

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant restaurant owner.  A chair at the restaurant collapsed when plaintiff sat down.  The court determined the defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition of the chair and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply:

The duty of a property owner to inspect his or her property “is measured by a standard of reasonableness under the circumstances” … .  Here, defendant testified that she wipes down the chairs at the end of each day and that, “every month or so,” she performs a “major cleaning” of the restaurant, which includes an inspection of the chairs.  In the absence of any prior complaints, incidents, accidents, or any other circumstances that should have aroused defendant’s suspicion that the chairs were defective …, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness of defendant’s inspection practices, and thus whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the chair.

We reject plaintiffs’ alternative contention that notice to defendant was not required because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.  That doctrine “does not apply here because, inter alia, defendant was not in exclusive control of the instrumentality that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries,” i.e., the chair… . Catalano v Tanner, 1087, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

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