You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Question of Fact About Whether Village Negligent in Maintaining Sewer System

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact about whether the defendant village was negligent in maintaining the sewer system resulting in sewage leaking into plaintiffs’ basement:

We conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant “received ‘notice of a dangerous condition or ha[d] reason to believe that the [sewer] pipes ha[d] shifted or deteriorated and [were] likely to cause injury’ ” and whether defendant neglected to “ ‘make reasonable efforts to inspect and repair the defect’ ” … .  The record establishes that plaintiffs made numerous complaints to defendant for many years prior to the incident at issue and that defendant did not consistently keep written records of the complaints it received with respect to the sewer lines.  Mason v Village of Neward, 856, 4th Dept. 10-4-13

 

, , ,

Disclosure Appropriate in Lead Paint Case, Physician-Patient Privilege Waived

In a lead-paint-exposure case the Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants were not entitled to full disclosure of records based on the physician-patient privilege.  The Fourth Department determined the privilege had been waived:

In view of the injuries alleged by plaintiff, we conclude that she waived her physician-patient privilege and any related privileges with respect to the records sought, and that those records may be material and necessary to the defense of the action … . There may be information in plaintiff’s records, however, that is irrelevant to this action, and there are legitimate concerns with respect to “the unfettered disclosure of sensitive and confidential information” contained in those records … . Thus, here, as in Dominique D. v Koerntgen (107 AD3d 1433, 1434), we modify the order by denying defendants’ motion and cross motion to the extent that they seek authorizations for the full disclosure of the records sought and by granting plaintiff’s cross motion to the extent that it seeks an in camera review of the records, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for such in camera review and the redaction of any irrelevant information… . Adams v Daughtery…, 907, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Abutting Landowner Not Liable for Sidewalk Slip and Fall

In affirming summary judgment to defendants (abutting landowners) in a sidewalk slip and fall case, the Fourth Department explained:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous and defective conditions [on a] public sidewalk[] is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner” … .  That rule does not apply, however, if there is an ordinance or municipal charter that specifically imposes a duty on the abutting landowner to maintain and repair the public sidewalk and provides that a breach of that duty will result in liability for injuries to the users of the sidewalk; the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the use of the abutting landowner; the abutting landowner affirmatively created the defect; or the abutting landowner negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk … .

It is undisputed that the applicable town code does not impose liability on defendants for injuries to users of the public sidewalk abutting their property.  Furthermore, the testimony and affidavits submitted by defendants in support of their motion established that the sidewalk was not constructed in a special manner for their benefit, that they did not affirmatively create the defect, and that they did not negligently construct or repair the sidewalk.  Notably, defendants’ submissions established that the sidewalk was constructed by the builder of defendants’ development, who laid it in continuation of the sidewalk on the properties neighboring defendants’ property in both directions, and that defendants did not request that the sidewalk be constructed and had no input into its construction.  Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, defendants established that they did not affirmatively create the defect by any alleged special use of the sidewalk as a driveway… . Schroeck v Gies…, 1021, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Summary Judgment for Out of Possession Landlord in Slip and Fall Case

In a slip and fall case, the Fourth Department determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord (McDonald’s) had met its burden demonstrating it was not responsible for snow and ice removal:

McDonald’s met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .  McDonald’s submitted evidence demonstrating that it, as a franchisor, lacked day-to-day control over the franchisee …, and that it was an out-of-possession landlord who did not retain control over the premises and was not contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises… . Maisano v McDonald’s …, 994, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Revocation of Pistol Permit (After Acquittal) Not Supported by Evidence

The Fourth Department, in an Article 78 proceeding initiated in the appellate court, annulled the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permit.  The permit was suspended temporarily when petitioner was charged with menacing but was revoked after an acquittal:

We agree with petitioner that the determination is arbitrary and capricious, and constitutes an abuse of discretion inasmuch as the record from the hearing is devoid of any evidence upon which respondent could have based his determination … .  We further agree with petitioner that his due process rights were violated inasmuch as the record from the hearing does not demonstrate that he was afforded the opportunity to review the alleged documentation upon which respondent based his determination … .  We therefore annul the determination.  We note, however, that our determination does not preclude the commencement of a new revocation proceeding… . Matter of Curts v Randall, 890, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Trial Judge Should Have Allowed Slightly Late Peremptory Challenge—Conviction Reversed

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction based on the trial court’s refusal to allow the defense a peremptory challenge.  Defense counsel had mistakenly crossed out the juror’s name and quickly let the court know about the mistake:

After several prospective jurors had been excused for cause, the court directed the attorneys to exercise their peremptory challenges to the first group of prospective jurors in the panel.  The prosecutor exercised several challenges, followed by defense counsel.  As the court began to indicate the number of challenges that remained for each side, defense counsel immediately asked if he could exercise a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror in question on appeal.  When the court said no, defense counsel indicated that he had “crossed [the prospective juror’s name] out by mistake.”  The court reiterated that it would not permit the challenge, indicating that it had warned the attorneys about adhering to the court’s procedures.

“Under these circumstances, ‘we can detect no discernable interference or undue delay caused by [defense counsel’s] momentary oversight . . . that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [his] challenge,’ ” and we thus conclude that the court’s refusal to permit the challenge was an abuse of discretion … .  Inasmuch as “the right to exercise a peremptory challenge against a specific prospective juror is a ‘substantial right’ . . . , reversal is mandated” … . People v Rosario-Boria, 1007, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Failure to Make Motion for Trial Order of Dismissal Not Ineffective Assistance

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Fourth Department determined defense counsel’s failure to make a motion for a trial order of dismissal did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel:

…“[D]efense counsel’s failure to make a specific motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s case [does] not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, inasmuch as any such motion would have had no chance of success” … .  Indeed, we note that defendant does not contend on appeal that the evidence at trial is legally insufficient to support the conviction.  People v Hicks, 1008, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Failure to Serve Claim by Certified Mail Deprived Court of Claims of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ dismissal of an action for failure to comply with the statutory service-of-claim-by-certified-mail requirement.  The court noted that the court never gained subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the CPLR 3211 (e) waiver provision, which addressed personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction, did not apply:

…[C]laimants served their claim on the Attorney General by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11. Defendant’s answer raised the defense that the court lacked, inter alia, subject matter jurisdiction based on claimants’ improper service, and defendant later moved to dismiss the claim on that ground.  Claimants opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order deeming the service corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001. The court granted defendant’s motion and denied claimants’ cross motion, and we now affirm.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides that a party seeking to file a claim against the State of New York must serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested.  It is well settled that “nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary” … .  Inasmuch as the claim herein was served by regular mail, the court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim … . Contrary to claimants’ contention, defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of improper service, made approximately 20 months after service of its answer, was not precluded by the 60-day waiver provision of CPLR 3211 (e).  The failure to comply with the service requirements in the Court of Claims Act “result[s] not in a failure of personal jurisdiction, . . . but in a failure of subject matter jurisdiction[,] which may not be waived”… . Zoeckler…, v State of New York, 883, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Timeliness Requirements for Motion for Summary Judgment Explained

In affirming the trial court’s determination defendants’ motion for summary judgment was untimely, the Fourth Department explained the applicable law:

“Where . . . a court does not set a date by which summary judgment motions must be made pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), such a motion must be made no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue ‘except with leave of court on good cause shown’ ” … .  Good cause in the context of CPLR 3212 (a) “requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion—a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness—rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial filings, however tardy”… .  O’Brien v Bainbridge…, 990, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Failure to Serve Complaint Upon Demand Required Dismissal of the Action

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint after a demand should have been granted:

“To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action” … . Here, plaintiff failed to meet her burden with respect to either prong of that test.  Concerning the first part of the test, plaintiff asserted that she delayed in filing the complaint because she did not receive defendant’s demand for the complaint.  In our view, that excuse is not reasonable… .  Service of the demand for the complaint was complete upon – mailing (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]), and defendant’s submission in support of its motion of a proper affidavit of service of the demand entitled it to the presumption that a proper mailing occurred … .  We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s mere denial of receipt of the demand was insufficient to rebut that presumption … .  Even assuming, arguendo, that nonreceipt of the demand was a reasonable excuse, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action with a verified complaint or an affidavit of merit, and thus dismissal of the action is required… . Dunlop v Saint Leo the Great, RC Church, 865, 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