You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Question of Fact Raised by Competing Expert Affidavits

The Fourth Department determined competing experts raised a question of fact about whether the post-discharge arrangements for psychiatric treatment of plaintiff’s decedent were adequate.  Plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide 16 days after he was released from defendant psychiatrist’s in-patient care:

…[P]laintiff submitted the affidavit of her unidentified expert, wherein the expert stated that the proper standard of care required that decedent, who had been prescribed multiple medications that had significant side effects, such as suicidal ideation, “be monitored closely by a psychiatrist from the point of his discharge.” It is undisputed that defendant approved the discharge without ensuring that decedent had a psychiatrist who could treat him. Additionally, defendant acknowledged at her deposition that decedent required psychiatric care upon discharge, but testified that it was not her responsibility to arrange for decedent’s post-discharge care and that this responsibility was “customarily [within] the purview of the social worker.”  Similarly, defendant’s expert stated in his affidavit that it was within the standard of care to delegate to a licensed social worker the task of arranging for post-discharge care. Plaintiff’s expert, however, disagreed, stating that “delegating the task to a social worker without insuring that the task was completed is a . . . deviation from the standard of care.”  We conclude that the conflicting opinions of the experts raise an issue of fact for trial… .  Mazella… v Beals…and Mashinik, 931, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Storm in Progress Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant in Slip and Fall Case

In reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined the “storm in progress” doctrine warranted summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the defendant created the dangerous condition, noting that the failure to remove all the ice and snow and the failure to sand or salt a sidewalk does not constitute exacerbation of a dangerous condition.  With respect to the “storm in progress” doctrine, the Court wrote:

We conclude that the evidence submitted by defendant in support of his motion, including an affidavit from his expert meteorologist and the weather reports upon which that expert relied, established as a matter of law that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident … and, thus, that defendant had no duty to remove the snow and ice “until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm” ….  The accident occurred at approximately 8:45 a.m. on December 31, 2008, when plaintiff exited defendant’s store in the City of Rochester.  According to defendant’s expert meteorologist, a snowstorm began in the Rochester area late in the evening on December 30, 2008, and continued into the next day.  At 4:15 a.m. on December 31, the National Weather Service issued a “winter weather advisory” for the Rochester area and, two hours later, the advisory was upgraded to a “winter storm warning.”  More than 11 inches of snow accumulated in Rochester on December 31, which was a record for that date, and most of that snow fell during the early morning hours.  Indeed, plaintiff acknowledged during her deposition that it was snowing on the morning in question as she drove to the store, and that testimony was consistent with the testimony of defendant’s wife, among other witnesses. Glover v Botsford…, 959, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Business Not Liable for Slip and Fall on Abutting Icy Sidewalk/”Special Use” Doctrine Explained

The Fourth Department determined the defendant funeral home could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s fall on an icy sidewalk in front of the home.  There was no statute or ordinance imposing liability on the abutting landowner (as opposed to the municipality), the funeral home did not derive a special use from the sidewalk, and the funeral home did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition. In explaining the “special use” doctrine, the court wrote:

Under the special use doctrine, a landowner whose property abuts a public sidewalk may be liable for injuries that are caused by a defect in the sidewalk when the municipality has given the landowner permission to “interfere with a street solely for private use and convenience in no way connected with the public use” and the landowner fails to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition … .  “A special use is typically characterized by the installation of some object in the sidewalk or street or some variance in the construction thereof” … . Here, defendants established that the sidewalk was unencumbered by the installation of any objects or by other variances in construction, and plaintiff submitted no evidence that “the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner or occupier”… . Panzica v Fantauzzi…, 863, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

,

No Appeal Lies from an Order Entered Upon a Default

The Fourth Department noted that no appeal lies from an order entered upon a default. The only remedy is a motion to vacate the default order:

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the respective motion and cross motions of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against them.  It is undisputed that plaintiff failed to oppose the motion and cross motions or to appear on the return date thereof, and thus we deem the order to be entered upon plaintiff’s default… . We therefore dismiss the appeal from the order inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on default … .  The fact that Supreme Court, upon plaintiff’s default, granted the motion and cross motions on the merits … is of no moment inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on default.  “[I]t is not inconsistent to determine both that plaintiff[ is] in default and that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits.  Plaintiff[’s] remedy is to move to vacate the default [order]”… .  Britt…v Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority…, 977, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

,

Resentencing After Original Sentence Expired Violates Double Jeopardy Clause

The Fourth Department explained that a resentencing which takes place after the original sentence has been completed violates the double jeopardy clause.  People v Alvarado, 961, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Court, Not Prosecutor, Must Determine Whether Defendant Is Eligible for Youthful Offender Adjudication

In remitting the matter to determine whether defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender, the Fourth Department explained that is was unclear whether the court, as opposed to the prosecutor, made the determination not to afford defendant youthful offender status:

“After receipt of a written report of the [preplea or presentence] 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]).  In People v Rudolph (___ NY3d ___ [June 27, 2013]), the Court of Appeals held that section 720.20 mandates that, when the sentence is imposed, the sentencing court must determine whether to grant youthful offender status to every defendant who is eligible for it.  The Court of Appeals stated that “[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” … . People v Brownell, 946, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Persistent Felony Offender Statute Does Not Require Prior Felonies to be Equivalent to New York Felonies

The Fourth Department determined that the persistent felony offender statute did not require that the prior felonies taken into consideration for persistent felon status be equivalent to New York felonies:

The persistent felony offender statute … contains no language requiring that the underlying out-of-state conviction be for a crime that would constitute a felony in New York, i.e., “an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year may be imposed” (Penal Law § 10.00 [5]), or that the elements of the foreign crime be equivalent to the elements of a New York crime (see § 70.10 [1] [b] [i]).  Rather, as noted by the Second Circuit in upholding the constitutionality of the persistent felony offender statute, “[s]ection 70.10 (1) (b) does not distinguish among felony convictions that arise under federal, New York State, or out-of-state law.  Thus, if the acts constitute a felony under federal or another state’s law, they will be deemed a felony for purposes of persistent offender status under [s]ection 70.10 even if there is no counterpart felony in New York law.  By contrast, under [s]ection 70.06 [the second felony offender statute], the underlying acts of a federal or out-of-state felony must be recognized as a felony in New York to qualify as a predicate felony” … .  People v Jones, 853, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Judge Properly Relied on Presentence Report to Refuse to Adjudicate Defendant a Youthful Offender

The Fourth Department determined that the trial judge’s refusal to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender, after a promise to do so, based upon information in the presentence report, constituted an adequate reason and explanation for the refusal:

“As a matter of law and strong public policy, a sentencing promise made in conjunction with a plea is conditioned upon ‘its being lawful and appropriate in light of the subsequent presentence report or information obtained from other reliable sources’ ” … .  Contrary to defendant’s contention, “the court’s reliance on the presentence report for its determination that defendant would not be afforded youthful offender status ‘constitutes an adequate explanation for the denial of defendant’s request for such status’ ” … . The presentence report “included mitigating and aggravating factors, [and therefore] adequately explained the court’s reasons for denying youthful offender status on the instant indictment” … .  People v Jamal H, 831, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Furtive Behavior Justified Pat Down Search

The Fourth Department determined the police properly searched (frisked) the defendant after a valid vehicle-stop based on his “furtive” behavior:

As defendant correctly concedes, the police officer lawfully stopped defendant’s vehicle because it had a broken taillight …, and defendant voluntarily exited the vehicle.  Given defendant’s furtive behavior before and after exiting his vehicle, including being “fidgety” and “evasive” when answering the police officer’s questions, turning the right side of his body away from the police officer, and placing his right hand in his jacket pocket, the police officer “reasonably suspected that defendant was armed and posed a threat to [his] safety” … .  “Based upon [his] reasonable belief that defendant was armed, the officer[] lawfully conducted [the] pat frisk” that resulted in the seizure of the gun … . People v Carter, 965, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Testify Before the Grand Jury

The Fourth Department reversed the trial court and dismissed the indictment (without prejudice) because the defendant was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury. The defendant gave notice of his intent to testify and appeared at the right time and place. The defendant signed a waiver of immunity but deleted three paragraphs from the document.  The Fourth Department determined the waiver was sufficient even with the deletions:

CPL 190.50 (5) provides that, if a defendant serves upon the People a notice of his intent to testify before the grand jury, appears at the appropriate time and place, and signs and submits to the grand jury “a waiver of immunity pursuant to [CPL] 190.45,” the defendant “must be permitted to testify before the grand jury” (CPL 190.50 [5] [b]; see CPL 190.50 [5] [a]).  In the event that the defendant complies with those procedures and is thereafter not permitted to testify, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the indictment (see CPL 190.50 [5] [c]).  The parties do not dispute that defendant complied with the first two requirements of the statute. The only dispute is whether defendant signed “a waiver of immunity pursuant to section 190.45” (CPL 190.50 [5] [b]).  CPL 190.45 (1) provides that a waiver of immunity “is a written instrument” in which a person who is to testify before the grand jury stipulates that he or she “waives [the] privilege against self-incrimination and any possible or prospective immunity to which he [or she] would otherwise become entitled, pursuant to [CPL] 190.40, as a result of giving evidence in such proceeding.”  Here, the paragraphs in the waiver of immunity form that defendant left intact stated that defendant waived his privilege against self-incrimination and any immunity to which he would otherwise be entitled pursuant to CPL 190.40.  Thus, defendant signed a waiver of immunity form that complied with the requirements of CPL 190.45 (1) and was therefore required to be permitted to testify before the grand jury (see CPL 190.50 [5] [b]).  It is well settled that a defendant’s statutory right to testify before the grand jury “ ‘must be scrupulously protected’ ” … . People v Brumfield, 851, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

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