You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Evidence Needed to Corroborate Accomplice Testimony and Evidence Admissible at Restitution Hearing Explained

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for corroboration of accomplice testimony, and the admissible evidence in a restitution hearing:

“New York’s accomplice corroboration protection requires only enough nonaccomplice evidence to assure that the accomplices have offered credible probative evidence that connects the accomplice evidence to the defendant”…. Even the most “[s]eemingly insignificant matters may harmonize with the accomplice’s narrative so as to provide the necessary corroboration” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).    Here, defendant’s accomplice testified that he assisted defendant in burglarizing the victim’s home and stealing the victim’s car, and that testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses that defendant was seen driving the victim’s stolen car the day after the burglary.* * *

The victim testified at the restitution hearing and provided a detailed breakdown of the value of the stolen items as well as documents establishing the cost of replacing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, which was returned to her. In addition, the amount of restitution owed to the victim’s insurance company, which was financially harmed by reimbursing the victim for a portion of the cost of changing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, was supported by the claim it submitted to the Genesee County Probation Department. It is immaterial that an employee of the insurance company did not testify at the restitution hearing because “[a]ny relevant evidence, not legally privileged, may be received [at a restitution hearing] regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence” (CPL 400.30 [4] …). People v Wilson, 275, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Action Seeking to Enjoin Closure of Charter School Dismissed

Plaintiffs brought an action for injunctive relief against the Board of Regents which had denied the application of plaintiff Pinnacle Charter School to renew its charter. Supreme Court had granted a preliminary injunction and dismissed one cause of action. The Fourth Department reversed the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint entirely, including the causes of action alleging a violation of due process and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act:

The first and second causes of action allege, respectively, that the determination of the Board of Regents violated Pinnacle’s due process rights under the State Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 6) and the Federal Constitution (US Const, 14th Amend, § 1). We agree with defendants that the New York Charter Schools Act (Education Law art 56) creates no constitutionally protected property interest in the renewal of a charter and thus that the first and second causes of action fail to state a cause of action… * * *

…[W]e agree with defendants that the Board of Regents was acting pursuant to its discretionary authority when it denied Pinnacle’s renewal application, and it was not required to promulgate any rules pursuant to article 2 of the State Administrative Procedure Act with respect to its exercise of such authority… .  Pinnacle Charter School, et al v Board of Regents, et al, 432, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Damages in Firefighters’ Discrimination Suit Modified

The Fourth Department modified the Supreme Court’s damages assessment in a case brought by firefighters against the City of Buffalo (and named individuals) “alleging that [the City] discriminated against them by allowing promotional eligibility lists created pursuant to the Civil Service Law to expire solely on the ground that plaintiffs, who were next in line for promotion, were Caucasian.” The order finding the City liable was issued based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Ricci v DeStefano (557 US 557) which held “before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious discriminatory action”… .In affirming that order (in a prior appeal), the Fourth Department determined the City “did not have a strong basis in evidence to believe that they would be subject to disparate-impact liability if they failed to take the race-conscious action, i.e., allowing the eligibility lists to expire” … .  The case came before the Fourth Department this time with respect to damages-issues only.  The Fourth Department affirmed the damages for emotional distress, but modified the economic damages finding that Supreme Court had erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendants to establish plaintiffs’ economic damages, and noting that damages for loss of future earnings should be based on the difference between what he or she is now able to earn and what he or she could have earned in the absence of discrimination. The Fourth Department determined some of the expert-findings were too speculative.   Margerum, et al v City of Buffalo, et al, 421, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, , ,

Elements of Malicious Prosecution, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Libel and Slander Explained

In affirming Supreme Court, which dismissed some causes of action and allowed others to stand, the Fourth Department explained elements of several intentional torts, including malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, libel and slander.

Malicious prosecution:

“The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are:(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” . ;. . “In the context of a malicious prosecution cause of action, probable cause ‘consists of such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances to believe plaintiff guilty’ ”…Actual malice “means that the defendant must have commenced the . . . criminal proceeding due to a wrong or improper motive, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served”… . * * *

False arrest, false imprisonment:

It is well settled that a plaintiff’s appearance in court as a result of the issuance of a criminal summons or appearance ticket is insufficient to support a claim of false arrest or false imprisonment…, and here “the record establishes that plaintiff was never arrested or held in actual custody by any law enforcement agency as a result of the charge . . . filed against [him]” … .

Libel:

…W]e conclude that the court properly denied that part of their motion seeking to dismiss the libel cause of action (eighth cause of action). [Defendant’s] statement that plaintiff made “several threats toward[] [defendant] and [her] residence,” which was contained in her supporting deposition that she provided to the police, “tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or [to] induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons” … .Moreover, contrary to the contention of the …defendants, proof of special damages is not required for libel on its face or libel per se…

Slander:

The two allegedly defamatory statements pleaded in the complaint do not constitute slander per se because they do not “charg[e] plaintiff with a serious crime” or “tend to injure [plaintiff] in his . . . trade, business or profession”… .Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, stalking in the fourth degree does not constitute a “serious crime” for purposes of slander per se … . “To be actionable as words that tend to injure another in his or her profession, the challenged statement must be more than a general reflection upon [the plaintiff]’s character or qualities. Rather, the statement must reflect on [the plaintiff’s] performance or be incompatible with the proper conduct of [the plaintiff’s] business”… .  Zetes v Stephens, et al, 406, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Respondents in Visitation Proceeding Have Right to Assigned Counsel

The Fourth Department reversed and remitted a visitation proceeding to Family Court because Family Court had relieved assigned counsel, noting that the Fourth Department had recently held respondents in visitation proceedings are entitled to assigned counsel:

Family Court erred in relieving his assigned counsel after the modification petition, which sought full legal custody of the three children at issue, was amended to seek only a modification of respondent’s visitation (amended petition).  While this appeal was pending, we held that respondents in visitation proceedings are entitled to assigned counsel… . Matter of Brown v Patterson, 768, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

Denial of Visitation With Incarcerated Father Upheld

The Fourth Department affirmed Family Court’s denial of an incarcerated father’s petition for visitation with his children:

Although we recognize that the rebuttable presumption in favor of visitation applies when the parent seeking visitation is incarcerated…, we conclude that respondents rebutted the presumption by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation with petitioner would be harmful to the children …. A parent’s failure to seek visitation with a child for a prolonged period of time is a relevant factor when determining whether visitation is warranted…, and, here, petitioner has never met the daughter or the son.  In fact, before commencing these proceedings, petitioner did not seek visitation with either child.  Thus, petitioner is “essentially a stranger to the child[ren]”….  Matter of Brown v Terwilliger…, 576, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

Grandparents Had Standing to Seek Visitation

The Fourth Department noted that the grandparents had standing to seek visitation with their grandchildren, in addition to mother’s and father’s visitation:

…[W]e conclude that the grandparents established “a prima facie case of standing to seek visitation with the subject child[ren]” inasmuch as they demonstrated “the existence of a sufficient relationship with the child[ren] to warrant the intervention of equity”….  The record establishes that the grandparents regularly visited with the children before the mother ceased permitting such visits. In addition, the grandmother provided full-time daycare for the children before they reached school-age, took the children to pre- kindergarten, and engaged in activities with them after school, and the grandfather attended the children’s school activities. Matter of Dubiel v Schaefer, 672, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Order to Compel Acceptance of Answer Upheld—Delay Caused by Insurance Carrier is Valid Excuse—Precedent to the Contrary Overruled

In a personal injury action, the Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s order compelling plaintiff to accept the answer as timely.  In so finding, the Fourth Department noted that a prior decision holding that a delay caused by the defendant’s insurance carrier is not a reasonable excuse should no longer be followed:

It is well settled that “ ‘[p]ublic policy favors the resolution of a case on the merits, and a court has broad discretion to grant relief from a pleading default if there is a showing of merit to the defense, a reasonable excuse for the delay and it appears that the delay did not prejudice the other party’ ”….  Furthermore, “[t]he determination whether an excuse is reasonable lies within the sound discretion of the motion court”…. Here, defendant met her burden with respect to a meritorious defense by demonstrating that there is factual support for her defenses… .  * * *

Insofar as we indicated in our decision in Smolinski v Smolinski (13 AD3d 1188, 1189) that “ ‘an excuse that the delay in appearing or answering was caused by the defendant’s insurance carrier is insufficient’ ” to establish a reasonable excuse for a delay in answering, it is no longer to be followed. Rather, the determination whether delay caused by an insurer constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default in answering lies “in the discretion of the court in the interests of justice” (Castillo v Garzon-Ruiz, 290 AD2d 288, 290; see CPLR 2005).   Accetta v Simmons, 676, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Law Office Failure Can Be a Valid Excuse Re: Vacating a Default Judgment

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment, the Fourth Department explained that law office failure can be excused:

The court erred in rejecting that excuse on the ground that “law office failure is not an excuse that is accepted by the Court of Appeals.”    It is well established that law office failure may be excused, in the court’s discretion, when deciding a motion to vacate a default order (see CPLR 2005;…). With respect to other relevant factors, we note that defendants had contested plaintiff’s claims in federal court for more than a year before this action was recommenced in Supreme Court, and their attorneys had filed timely notices of appearances in Supreme Court and had been communicating with plaintiff’s attorney before the answer was due. We further note that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendants’ inadvertent default, and that the extent of the delay was minimal. Calaci v Allied Interstate, Inc…, 750, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Allowed—Prejudice in this Context Explained

In reversing Supreme Court in a case concerning whether an assault was covered under an insurance policy, the Fourth Department determined the defendant insurance company’s motion for leave to amend its answer should have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied.  After finding that the amendment was meritorious, the Fourth Department explained how to analyze whether an amendment would “prejudice” the defendant:

“ ‘Prejudice may be found where a party has incurred some change in position or hindrance in the preparation of its case which could have been avoided had the original pleading contained the proposed amendment’ ”… . Here, the alleged prejudice would not have been avoided had the original answer contained the proposed amendment.    “[T]he fact that an amended pleading may defeat a party’s cause of action is not a sufficient basis for denying [a] motion to amend”….  Williams… v New York Central Fire Insurance Company, 705, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

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