You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Attorney’s Illness Was Adequate Excuse—Vacation of Preclusion Order Allowed

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s allowing plaintiff in a medical malpractice action to respond to discovery demands, after the court had precluded plaintiff for not responding.  Plaintiff’s attorney’s illness provided a reasonable excuse, and the expert’s affirmation (later converted to an affidavit as directed by the court) demonstrated a meritorious action:

“It is well established that the illness of an attorney may constitute a reasonable excuse for a default… . In support of the motion, plaintiff’s counsel averred that, from early 2010 until shortly before his motion to vacate the default order, he was suffering from recurring health issues stemming from two heart attacks, a serious infection requiring hospitalization, and uncontrolled Type II diabetes. According to counsel, those medical issues “affected [his] health in an ongoing manner and prevented [him] from diligently and timely responding to [defendants’] demands in this case.” There is no evidence that counsel’s neglect in this case was “willful, contumacious or manifested bad faith” … . Particularly in light of New York’s “strong public policy . . . [in favor of] disposing of cases on their merits”…, we conclude that “[w]here, as here, there is no evidence of willfulness, deliberate default, or prejudice to the defendants, the interest of justice is best served by permitting the case to be decided on its merits” ….  Loucks v Klimek, 477, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Legal Malpractice Action Accrues When Committed, Not When Client Learns of It

The Fourth Department explained when a legal malpractice action accrues (when it is committed, whether or not the aggrieved party is aware of it):

“ ‘A cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed’ ”….  “In most cases, this accrual time is measured from the day an actionable injury occurs, ‘even if the aggrieved party is then ignorant of the wrong or injury’ ”….“ ‘What is important is when the malpractice was committed, not when the client discovered it’ ” … .  Elstein v Phillips Lytle, LLP, 631, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Exception to Written Notice of Defect Prerequisite Did Not Apply; Question of Fact Whether Municipality Created Dangerous Condition (Gap in Bridge-Roadway)

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the exception to the written notice requirement (notice to a municipality re: a dangerous condition) did not apply, but there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the dangerous condition, a gap in the roadway on a bridge, which caused the infant plaintiff to fall off his bicycle.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Where the municipality establishes that it lacked prior written notice, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to the rule, i.e., that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the municipality …. The affirmative negligence exception is “limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” ….    An omission on the part of the municipality “does not constitute affirmative negligence excusing noncompliance with the prior written notice requirement”…. We conclude that defendant met its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it did not receive prior written notice of any defective or dangerous condition on or near the bridge as required by Local Law No. 1 …. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must …, we conclude, however, that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant created a dangerous condition that caused the accident ….  Hawley v Town of Ovid, 450, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Complaint Against Town for Sewage Backup in Home Dismissed

The Fourth Department affirmed the dismissal of a negligence complaint against a town arising from the backup of sewage in plaintiffs’ house.  The decision includes a concise but complete explanation of the issues relevant to municipal liability for negligence:

In an action against a municipality such as defendant, it is “the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care.  Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to [perform certain governmental functions], this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created.  This is an offshoot of the general proposition that ‘[t]o sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ ” … ..“The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiffs’ negligence claim but to a defense that [is] potentially available to [defendant]—the governmental function immunity defense . . . [T]he common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions . . . [pursuant to which] ‘[a] public employee’s discretionary acts—meaning conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment—may not result in the municipality’s liability even when the conduct is negligent’ ” … ..  Middleton v Town of Salina, 604, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

4 ½ Inch Drop Raised Question of Fact About Dangerous Condition and Failure to Warn

The Fourth Department determined a 4 ½ inch drop just inside the entrance to a bowling alley raised a question of fact about whether the drop was a dangerous condition, even though no building codes applied.  In addition, there was a question of fact about the failure-to-warn cause of action.  Belsinger v M & M Bowling & Trophy Supplies, Inc, 558, 4th Dept 7-5-13

SLIP AND FALL

,

“Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleged Negligence

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and granted summary judgment dismissing claims which alleged Sirota, who worked as an independent contractor for defendant Ridgeway, was negligent in advising plaintiff to purchase “certain security and investment vehicles.”  The Fourth Department determined Ridgeway was entitled to summary judgment as Ridgeway had demonstrated it owed no duty of care to plaintiff to supervise Sirota (an independent contractor) because it did not direct or control Sirota’s providing investment advice:

…“[O]rdinarily, a principal is not liable for the acts of independent contractors in that, unlike the master-servant relationship, principals cannot control the manner in which the independent contractors’ work is performed”… . Although there are exceptions to that general rule …, we conclude that none apply to the circumstances presented here.  Although plaintiff’s claim sounds in negligent supervision, one of the recognized exceptions…, it is well settled that “the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal”,,,  Wendt v Bent Pyramid Productions, LLC, et al, 448, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Default Finding Should Not Have Been Made Where Attorney Appeared and Asked for Adjournment

In reversing the order of Family Court, the Fourth Department determined the Support Magistrate should not have ruled respondent had defaulted (respondent’s attorney appeared and requested an adjournment) and the colloquy between petitioner and the Support Magistrate was not a sufficient basis for a factual finding respondent had willfully violated a support order.  Family Court, therefore, should not have confirmed the Support Magistrate’s order.  Matter of Manning v Sobotka, 739, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

Child Support Awarded to Wife Even though Husband Awarded Sole Custody; Residency Shared Equally/Husband Has Much Higher Income than Wife

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lindley, the Fourth Department determined child support should have been awarded to the wife (defendant), even though the husband had sole legal custody, because the residency of the children was shared equally and the wife’s income was less than the husband’s:

…[T]he court erred in awarding child support to plaintiff and that the court instead should have awarded child support to her. It is well settled that in shared residency arrangements, where neither parent has the children for a majority of the time, the party with the higher income is deemed to be the noncustodial parent for purposes of child support….  Here, as noted, the residency schedule affords the parties equal time with the children, and thus neither party has the children for the majority of the time. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s income exceeds that of defendant — at the time of trial, plaintiff earned $134,924.48 annually, while the JHO imputed income of $25,000 to defendant, whose actual earnings were $14,109.53— plaintiff is the “noncustodial” parent and, as such, he must pay child support to defendant.

It is true, as plaintiff points out, that [the cited cases] involve awards of joint legal custody, whereas he was awarded sole legal custody; that fact, however, should not affect the child support determination.  Although the award of sole legal custody to plaintiff allows him to make important decisions in the children’s lives, that decision-making authority does not increase his child-related costs. A parent’s child-related costs are dictated by the amount of time he or she spends with the children, and, here, plaintiff spends no more time with the children than does defendant.  We note, moreover, that there is already a significant disparity in the parties’ incomes, and an award of child support to plaintiff would only widen that gulf.  In our view, the children’s standard of living should not vary so drastically from one parent’s house to the other.

Thus, under the circumstances of this case — where plaintiff has sole legal custody, but the residency schedule affords the parents equal time with the children — an award of child support to defendant will best “assure that [the] children will realize the maximum benefit of their parents’ resources and continue, as near as possible, their preseparation standard of living in each household” … .  Leonard v Leonard, 402, 4th Dept 6-28-13 

 

,

Contractual Relationship Did Not Preclude Causes of Action Sounding in Tort

In affirming most of Supreme Court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Department explained why the economic loss doctrine did not preclude plaintiff’s recovery in tort, in spite of the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant and the contract-based causes of action in the complaint.  Pursuant to two contracts, the defendant supplied electronics and fluorescent-tube recycling systems which allegedly failed resulting in mercury contamination:

…[T]he economic loss doctrine does not preclude plaintiff from recovering in tort as a matter of law.“ Pursuant to that doctrine, a plaintiff may not recover in tort against a manufacturer for economic loss that is contractually based, ‘whether due to injury to the product itself or consequential losses flowing therefrom’ ”…. Where, however, there is harm to persons or property other than the property that is the subject of the contract, a plaintiff is entitled to recover in tort… .  The factors to consider are “the nature of the defect, the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred, and the damages sought”…. We conclude that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion with respect to the causes of action sounding in tort because the evidence submitted by defendant establishes that the mercury contamination of plaintiff’s facility, which was allegedly caused by defendant’s products, caused damage to persons and property other than the property that was the subject of the contracts.   Electrical Waste Recycling Group, Limited v Andela Tool & Machine, Inc…, 626, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

, ,

Malicious Prosecution Action Against County, Medical Examiner and District Attorney Survived Motion to Dismiss/Prosecutorial and Governmental Immunity Doctrines Explained

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a malicious prosecution (intentional tort) action against two counties, a district attorney and a medical examiner.  The action was commenced after plaintiff was arrested and indicted for the death of his seven-month-old daughter (the indictment was subsequently dismissed).  In explaining the nature of the action, the Fourth Department wrote:

Once a suspect has been indicted, the grand jury action creates a presumption of probable cause….  “If plaintiff is to succeed in his malicious prosecution action after he has been indicted, he must establish that the indictment was produced by fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith” … .  Here, the complaint sufficiently alleges fraud, perjury, and conduct undertaken in bad faith. Plaintiff alleged that the police concluded in their initial investigation, based upon statements by [the medical examiner], that the infant’s death was accidental, and the case was closed. However, after plaintiff’s wife spoke with [the district attorney], [the district attorney] allegedly began a campaign to bring charges against plaintiff despite knowing that plaintiff’s wife was giving inconsistent information. Plaintiff alleged that [the district attorney] encouraged or coached [the medical examiner] to provide false information to the police and false testimony to the grand jury regarding the infant’s cause of death and time of death. Plaintiff further alleged that [the district attorney] and [the medical examiner] were aware that the information was not mentioned in the autopsy report, was not supported by any document, and had no scientific basis.

In concluding the prosecutorial and governmental-function immunity doctrines did not require the dismissal of the complaint, the Fourth Department described the elements of both as follows:

Prosecutorial immunity provides absolute immunity “for conduct of prosecutors that was ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process’ ” …, i.e., conduct that involves “ ‘initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case’ ” ….  Thus, a prosecutor’s conduct in preparing for those functions may be absolutely immune, but acts of investigation are not ….  Prosecutors are afforded only qualified immunity when acting in an investigative capacity…   The focus is on the conduct for which immunity is claimed … .It is therefore the case that, where the prosecutor advises the police … or performs investigative work in order to decide whether a suspect should be arrested …, the prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity.  * * *The governmental function immunity defense “shield[s] public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” …. This limitation on liability “ ‘reflects a value judgment that—despite injury to a member of the public—the broader interest in having government officers and employees free to exercise judgment and discretion in their official functions, unhampered by fear of second- guessing and retaliatory lawsuits, outweighs the benefits to be had from imposing liability for that injury’ ”….

“Whether an action of a governmental employee or official is cloaked with any governmental immunity requires an analysis of the functions and duties of the actor’s particular position and whether they inherently entail the exercise of some discretion and judgment . … If these functions and duties are essentially clerical or routine, no immunity will attach” …. Discretionary acts “involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” …. If a functional analysis shows that the employee’s position is sufficiently discretionary, then the municipal defendant must also show “that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated” )….

“[G]overnmental immunity does not attach to every action of an official having discretionary duties but [attaches] only to those involving an exercise of that discretion” …. .

Here, the functions and duties of…the Medical Examiner include conducting an autopsy, reporting his findings to the police, and testifying before a grand jury.  The functions and duties of …an assistant district attorney include evaluating the evidence assembled by police officers. Those functions and duties are discretionary …..

Based on plaintiff’s allegations, however, it cannot be said that the conduct of [the medical examiner] and [the district attorney] was related to an exercise of their discretionary duties. Plaintiff alleged that [the medical examiner] fabricated findings and gave testimony that was not included in his autopsy report, and that [the district attorney] coached [the medical examiner] to lie. That alleged conduct plainly did not involve the exercise of “reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” …..  Kirchner v County of Niagara …, 561, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

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