You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

THE DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF PEDIATRICIAN IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION BY A FORMER PATIENT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE DURING A PHYSICAL EXAM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurance company was obligated to defend plaintiff pediatrician who stands accused of the sexual abuse of a former patient:

Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s [summary judgment] motion and granted defendant’s cross-motion [for summary judgment] on the grounds that the complaint in the underlying action did not assert claims arising from a “medical incident” or “professional services,” as those terms are defined in the subject insurance policy, and in any event that the policy’s exclusion for sexual assault precluded coverage. * * *

… [A]lthough the complaint in the underlying action primarily alleges that plaintiff sexually abused his former patient during a medical examination, it also contains “facts or allegations” that bring the claim “potentially within the protection purchased” for claims arising from professional services rendered by plaintiff, thus triggering the duty to defend … . For instance, the underlying complaint alleges that plaintiff improperly diagnosed, cared for and treated the former patient in question, and failed to provide her with “proper and appropriate pediatric care.” The underlying complaint further alleges that plaintiff inserted his finger into the former patient’s vagina “without gloves,” suggesting that perhaps such action would have been medically proper had plaintiff been wearing gloves. Without any context or details regarding the nature of the medical treatment being provided by plaintiff at the time of the alleged improper touching of the former patient, we cannot categorically conclude that the underlying complaint is devoid of facts or allegations that potentially bring the former patient’s claims within the protection purchased by plaintiff in the subject liability policy. Mscichowski v MLMIC Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 02391, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: As long as some of the allegations in a complaint arguably fall within the protection of the insurance policy, the insurer is obligated to defend the insured.

 

,

17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s SORA risk-level from two to one, determined the 17-year-old involved in the offense was statutorily excluded from the class of victims:

… [T]he court erred in assessing 20 points for the number of victims under risk factor 3 … . The court based its assessment on a determination that a 17-year-old was a victim of defendant’s conduct. However, 17-year-olds are statutorily excluded from the class of victims under Penal Law § 263.11, to which defendant pleaded guilty. When those points are removed, defendant has a total of 60 points, making him a presumptive level one risk. People v Cockrell, 2024 NY Slip Op 02439, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: 17-year-old’s are statutorily excluded from the class of victims under Penal Law 263.11.

 

, ,

PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE CHILD WAS NEVER HARMED AND SHE HAD MADE SERIOUS AND SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT REHABILITATION; RE: PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT IN THE CHILDCARE FIELD, RESPONDENT NYS OFFICE OF CHILDEN AND FAMILY SERVICES IS PRECLUDED FROM INFORMING ANY PROVIDER OR LICENSING AGENCY THAT PETITIONER IS THE SUBJECT OF A CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in an Article 78 proceeding transferred by Supreme Court, determined the respondent NYS Office of Children and Family Services should not have ruled that “petitioner’s acts of child maltreatment are relevant and reasonably related to employment in the childcare field.” The Fourth Department therefore directed that respondent “shall be precluded from informing a provider or licensing agency which makes an inquiry that petitioner is the subject of an indicated child maltreatment report.” No child had ever been harmed by petitioner and petitioner demonstrated serious and successful rehabilitative efforts.

… [T]he record establishes that petitioner had taken actions to show that she “[is] able to deal positively with [the] situation or problem that gave rise to the previous incident(s) of child . . . maltreatment” … . As petitioner contends, the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] failed to consider the evidence of psychological rehabilitation showing that she could deal positively with the trauma she suffered as a result of the domestic violence inflicted upon her by the father, which precipitated the indicated report. Petitioner’s marriage and family therapist submitted a letter explaining that petitioner had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder “as a result of the relationship” with the father, but that petitioner “ha[d] made an enormous amount of progress and ha[d] reached her treatment goals,” and “in no way presented as an unfit parent” during the course of her treatment. The psychologist who performed a comprehensive evaluation and testing of petitioner opined that, despite having been “aggressively abused” by the father, there was no indication that petitioner harbored “resentments toward others,” petitioner showed “no defensiveness or tendency to distort the facts of the situation,” and petitioner scored “unusually low” on the potential for abuse scale, which demonstrated that petitioner had “none of the characteristics, personal status or problems with the child or family members that would raise the question of abusive potential on her part.” Petitioner also had a “significantly elevated score on the scale indicating . . . the tendency to maintain emotional stability and to adequately deal with interpersonal exchanges.” Moreover, the ALJ ignored petitioner’s testimony about her improved ability to deal positively with emotionally challenging situations and the letters from other individuals attesting to petitioner’s ability to properly parent the child. The record therefore indisputably establishes that petitioner is able to deal positively with the situation or problem that gave rise to the indicated report. Matter of Hastings v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2024 NY Slip Op 02436, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A person who has been found to have committed acts of child maltreatment can petition the NYS Office of Children and Family Services for a ruling precluding the agency from informing any childcare provider of licensing agency of the maltreatment, thereby clearing the way for that person’s employment in the childcare field.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL BIAS WHICH INVOLVED HALF THE JURORS IN THIS MURDER CASE; TWO JUSTICES DISSENTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge correctly and adequately handled allegations of racial bias among the jurors. The decision is detailed and comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

From the dissent:

We recognize that “a trial court’s investigation of juror misconduct or bias is a delicate and complex task” … . On this record, however, the disclosure of alleged racial bias harbored by approximately half of the members of the jury warranted, at the very least, a question posed to each of the members of the panel of whether they could perform their duties as jurors without bias or prejudice. We also conclude that, in its voir dire of juror No. 10, the court did not explore whether juror No. 10 harbored any racial prejudice toward Black people, a prerequisite to determining whether she, in fact, could be unequivocally fair and impartial in deliberations. Under these circumstances, the court should also have determined on the record “whether the juror’s statements created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant by coloring the views of the other jurors as well as her own” … . People v Wiggins, 2024 NY Slip Op 01659, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Pont: Here a juror alleged half the jurors exhibited racial bias. The majority held the judge properly handled the question and properly determined defendant would get a fair trial. There was a two-justice dissent which argued further questioning of the jurors was required.

 

,

NEGLECT FINDINGS BASED ON MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND INADEQUATE SHELTER, EDUCATION, HYGIENE OR CLOTHING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, in a fact-specific decision which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined the proof did not support the finding mother neglected the child by providing inadequate shelter, education, hygiene or clothing. In addition, the finding mother neglected the child based on mental illness was not proven. The decision explains the level of proof needed for finding neglect in these contexts:

… [T]he Family Court Act defines a neglected child as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the child’s] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, [or] shelter . . . though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). The statute also provides that a parent is responsible for educational neglect when, under the same requisite conditions, the parent fails to supply the child with “adequate . . . education in accordance with the provisions of [the compulsory education part of Education Law article 65] . . . notwithstanding the efforts of the school district or local educational agency and child protective agency to ameliorate such alleged failure prior to the filing of the petition” … .

“The statute thus imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence” (… see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). “First, there must be ‘proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child’ ” … . “In order for danger to be ‘imminent,’ it must be ‘near or impending, not merely possible’ ” … . “This prerequisite to a finding of neglect ensures that the Family Court, in deciding whether to authorize state intervention, will focus on serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just on what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior” … . “Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances . . . Critically, however, the statutory test is minimum degree of care—not maximum, not best, not ideal—and the failure must be actual, not threatened” … .Matter of Justice H.M. (Julia S.), 2024 NY Slip Op 01653, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: The criteria for a neglect finding are explained in some depth. Here the proof did not support a finding of neglect based on mother’s mental illness or inadequate shelter, education, hygiene or clothing.

 

,

THE TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED THE COUNT DUPLICITOUS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial testimony rendered the count duplicitous:

“Even if a count facially charges one criminal act, that count is duplicitous if the evidence makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict” … . Here, count 2 of the indictment charged defendant with sexual abuse in the first degree regarding an alleged instance, occurring between July 2012 and January 2013, in which she subjected the victim to sexual contact when he was less than 11 years old. At trial, however, the victim testified to multiple acts of sexual contact during the relevant time frame, any one of which could serve as the sexual contact necessary to prove defendant’s guilt of count 2.

Because each act of alleged sexual contact constitutes “a separate and distinct offense” … , the victim’s testimony that numerous such acts occurred during the relevant time frame rendered count 2 of the indictment duplicitous. Indeed, ” ‘it is impossible to verify that each member of the jury convicted defendant for the same criminal act’ ” in connection with count 2 … . People v Zona, 2024 NY Slip Op 01652, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: If the indictment charges one incident during the described time-frame and the trial testimony reveals more than one incident, it is impossible to know whether the jury reached a unanimous verdict on any one incident.

 

, , ,

A RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DEALS ONLY WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the judge improperly refused to consider evidence submitted by defendants in opposition to claimant’s summary judgment motion citing the law of the case doctrine. The judge’s “law of the case” ruling, however, was based on her prior ruling on a motion to dismiss. Because a motion to dismiss addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case with respect to a subsequent summary judgment motion:

It is well settled that the law of the case doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision” … , and that a court’s order denying a motion to dismiss is “addressed to the sufficiency of the pleadings” and does not “establish the law of the case for the purpose of” motions for summary judgment … . We thus agree with defendants that the court erred in refusing to consider defendants’ proof in opposition to the motion … . Riley v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01647, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: A ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case for a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

, ,

A SIROIS HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER WITNESSES ARE UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF INTIMIDATION IS A MATERIAL STAGE OF A TRIAL; DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEARING; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have conducted the Sirois hearing, which is a material stage of a trial, in the absence of defendant and defense counsel. The hearing determined two witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Defense counsel was allowed to submit questions to be posed during the hearing:

… [A] new trial is warranted with respect to the criminal possession of a weapon count because he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial (… see generally CPL 260.20). During the suppression hearing, allegations were made that defendant, or people acting at his behest, had threatened two witnesses to the underlying incident about testifying against defendant. The People, therefore, requested a Sirois hearing and sought a determination that the witnesses had been made constructively unavailable to testify at trial by threats attributable to defendant, allowing them to introduce at trial statements made by the witnesses that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay … . * * *

The court erred in conducting the Sirois hearing without defendant or defense counsel present. “[A] defendant’s absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on [their] ability to defend the charges against [them] and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . A “[d]efendant [is] entitled to confront the witness[es] against [them] at [such a] hearing and also to be present so that [the defendant can] advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness[es]’ testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . People v Steele, 2024 NY Slip Op 01642, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point; Here defendant and defense counsel were excluded from the Sirois hearing which determined two prosecution witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Because the hearing is a material stage of the trial, defendant must be present. Allowing defense counsel to submit written questions was insufficient. A new trial was required.

 

, ,

A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a prior ruling in a prior action finding that withheld documents were protected from disclosure did not trigger the collateral estoppel doctrine in the instant action because the prior ruling did not indicate the specific privilege invoked for each document:

… [T]he court abused its discretion in summarily denying the motion on the basis that it had previously ruled that the withheld documents were protected from disclosure in a prior action involving the parties. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue when “the identical issue necessarily [was] decided in the prior action and [is] decisive of the present action, and . . . the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue [had] a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Preclusion of an issue occurs only if that issue was ” ‘actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided’ ” in the prior action … . While in the prior action the court denied a motion to compel the identical documents contained in the privilege log, the court did not specifically address whether the withheld documents were protected and which protection, such as attorney-client privilege, applied to each document. Thus, there is no evidence that the identical issue, decisive in this action, was necessarily decided in the prior action … . Wiltberger v Allen, 2024 NY Slip Op 01635, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: Collateral estoppel applies only when the issues are identical. Here, even though the documents at issue were found to be privileged in the prior action, the precise privilege applied to each document was not described in the prior order. Therefore it is not clear the issues are identical in the instant proceeding, so the application of collateral estoppel to preclude disclosure is not available.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN PRIOR NOTICE OF THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DECISION TO ASSESS 25 POINTS FOR A RISK FACTOR WHEN THE SORA BOARD SUGGESTED FIVE AND THE PEOPLE AGREED TO FIVE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the SORA risk-level assessment and remitting the matter for a new hearing, determined the defendant did not have notice of the judge’s sua sponte assessment of 25 points for risk factor 2, when both the SORA Board and the People recommended a five point assessment:

… [T]he court assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 even though the Board had recommended that five points be assessed and the People requested five points. Although the court stated during an appearance prior to the SORA hearing that “it does appear that the upward modification [sic] that was requested [in writing] by the People may be warranted in regards to the sexual intercourse factor,” the court misapprehended the nature of the People’s request for an upward departure, which plainly was not based on a disagreement with the Board’s recommendation under risk factor 2. In any event, the court did not grant an upward departure; instead, after determining at the hearing that only five points should be assessed under risk factor 2, the court later assessed 25 points based on an indication in the case summary that defendant stated at sentencing on the qualifying offense that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim.

Because defendant did not have notice that the court was considering a sua sponte assessment of additional points under risk factor 2, we “reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to [Supreme] Court for a new risk level determination, and a new hearing if necessary, in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights” … . People v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 01626, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: The judge in a SORA risk-level hearing cannot, sua sponte, increase the number of points assessed for a risk factor without prior notice to the defendant. Notice that the People will seek an upward departure does not constitute notice of increased points for a specific risk factor.

Similar issue and result where the People did not give notice of their intent to request a 10 point assessment for risk factor 12. People v Lostumbo, 2024 NY Slip Op 01639, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

​

​

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