You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Plea Colloquy Deficient Re: Depraved Indifference State of Mind

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the plea colloquy cast doubt on whether the defendant had the requisite “depraved indifference” state of mind:

Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary survives his waiver of the right to appeal … . Preservation of the contention is not required inasmuch as defendant correctly contends that his statements during the plea colloquy cast significant doubt upon his guilt….Defendant stated that he struggled with his wife for control of the knife and that he acted recklessly when he stabbed her, and thus his statements suggest that he did not act with the requisite “depraved indifference state of mind”… . Indeed, it is well established that a “one-on-one . . . knifing . . . can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder”…. We therefore conclude that County Court erred by accepting the plea without further inquiry … .  People v Robinson, 688, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Naming Different Victim Rendered Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective

The Fourth Department reversed the defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea) because the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective.  The SCI and the felony complaint named different victims:

We note that defendant’s contention that the SCI is jurisdictionally defective does not require preservation, and that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal….“[T]he designation of a[n individual] in the [SCI] different from the [individual] named in the felony complaint renders the crime contained in the information a different crime entirely”…. Thus, defendant was not held for action of a grand jury on the charge in the SCI inasmuch as “it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint”… .   People v Stevenson, 648, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly denied a motion to suppress a statement, finding that the statement was not tainted by an unwarned statement made an hour earlier.  In addition, over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department held that the failure to explain the five-year post release supervision (PRS) portion of the sentence when the plea was taken did not require reversal, in part because the error was not preserved:

Although defendant made an inculpatory statement after she was placed in a patrol vehicle and additional inculpatory statements after she was transported to the police station, the court granted suppression of the statement made in the patrol vehicle on the ground that her detention constituted an arrest for which the police officer lacked probable cause. The court refused, however, to suppress the subsequent statements at the police station based on its determination that they were “attenuated from the unlawful arrest.” We agree with the People that the record supports the court’s determination .. . Although there was a period of only one hour between the time of the illegal arrest and the time of defendant’s statements at the police station …, we note that defendant was given Miranda warnings before the stationhouse interview … Moreover, the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator constitutes a significant intervening event … inasmuch as that identification provided the police with probable cause for defendant’s arrest…  Lastly, there was no flagrant misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police officer who took defendant into custody … . * * *

In this case the prosecutor informed the court,“ ‘before the imposition of sentence’ ” (…see generally CPL 220.60 [3]), that he could not recall whether PRS had been discussed at the time of the plea. The prosecutor noted that they “should probably make a record of that . . . so it is clear.” At that point, the court informed defendant that it “intend[ed] to make a five year period of [PRS].” Defendant was then asked if she had a chance to talk about that with her attorney, and defendant answered, “[y]es.” Defendant was also asked if she understood that the PRS was a “part of [her] plea” and that she would be on parole supervision for five years at the end of her prison sentence. Defendant answered, “[c]orrect.”  When asked if she “still wish[ed] to go through with sentencing today,” defendant again answered, “[y]es.” In our view, the record is clear that “defendant could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence’s imposition…”… .  People v Turner, 529, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, ,

Objection to Molineux Evidence Not Preserved for Appeal

The Fourth Department noted that failure to request a limiting instruction with respect to Molineux evidence and the failure to object to the court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal.  The Molineux evidence in this sexual abuse case was evidence of the physical (not sexual) abuse of the victim’s brother:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because Supreme Court neglected to give limiting instructions with respect to Molineux evidence establishing that he had subjected the victim’s brother to physical abuse (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). As defendant correctly concedes, that contention is unpreserved for our review because his attorney did not request a limiting instruction and failed to object to the court’s failure to provide one (see CPL 470.05 [2]…).    Because the Molineux evidence in question did not relate to prior sexual abuse, and because it appears from the record that defense counsel knew of the court’s failure to give limiting instructions and yet remained silent when the error could have been corrected, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Willians, 392, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, , ,

Court’s Limited Role Re: Contract with Arbitration Clause Explained

In determining a dispute involving a lease must be resolved in arbitration, the Fourth Department explained the court’s limited role in this context:

Plaintiff …. commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 seeking, inter alia, “to compel the determination of claims to the real property described herein,” and defendant moved to compel arbitration under the lease and to stay the action. Supreme Court properly granted the motion. “Where parties have entered into an agreement containing a broad arbitration provision, the question of whether the arbitration clause governs a particular aspect of the controversy, as well as the determination of the merits of the dispute, are matters within the exclusive province of the arbitrator”….“Once it appears that there is, or is not[,] a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the underlying contract, the court’s inquiry is ended. Penetrating definitive analysis of the scope of the agreement must be left to the arbitrators whenever the parties have broadly agreed that any dispute involving the interpretation and meaning of the agreement should be submitted to arbitration”…. Thus, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it is not entitled to a judicial determination with respect to the continued force and effect of the lease, i.e., “the ultimate issue in this case” …, before submitting the matter to arbitration.  Gray v Talisman Energy USA Inc, 534, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, ,

Teacher Wrongly Denied Hearing Allowed by Education Law

The Fourth Department annulled a determination which suspended a tenured teacher for 30 days without pay finding she was wrongly denied a hearing:

[Under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)] petitioner was entitled to choose whether to be disciplined under the procedures set forth in the CBA or those set forth in section [Education Law] 3020-a, which allowed petitioner to elect a hearing (see § 3020-a [c]). Respondents, however, incorrectly denied petitioner’s written request for a section 3020-a hearing. We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the petition, annul the determination, and we direct respondents to reinstate petitioner with back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of her suspension, and to remove all references to the discipline imposed from petitioner’s personnel file… .  Matter of Kilduff v Rochester City School District, 518, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause of Fall—Plaintiff Was Using Stilts for Ceiling Work

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was a question of fact concerning whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his fall.  Plaintiff was using stilts to do ceiling work and slipped on ice:

…[W]e conclude that there is a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Although plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion …, defendants raised a triable issue of fact by introducing evidence that he was directed not to work in the area where the ice was located.    Thus, “ ‘[u]nlike those situations in which a safety device fails for no apparent reason, thereby raising the presumption that the device did not provide proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), here there is a question of fact [concerning] whether the injured plaintiff’s fall [resulted from] his own misuse of the safety device and whether such conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries’ ” … .  Nicometi v The Vineyards of Fredonia, Inc, 519, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Mother’s Parental Rights Terminated Because of Her Mental Retardation

The Fourth Department affirmed Family Court’s termination of mother’s parental rights based upon her mental retardation. Matter of Joseph A.T.P. (Julia P.), 472, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Award of Primary Custody to Father Reversed

In reversing Family Court and awarding primary physical custody to the mother and visitation to the father, the Fourth Department, over a dissent, wrote:

We agree with the mother and the AFC that the mother met her burden of establishing a change of circumstances. Since the original custody trial, each party has remarried and has had two additional children who are younger than the subject child, and the father has two step-children who are older than the subject child. The evidence established that the child felt isolated in the father’s home and indicated a strong desire to live with the mother. While a 10-year- old child’s preference regarding the parent with which he or she would like to reside is not dispositive, it is a factor to consider in determining whether there has been a change in circumstances … . The evidence further established that the child’s anxiety with respect to living with the father has progressed to the point where he has expressed to others his thoughts of harming the father and the father’s family, which led the parties to agree that the child needs counseling.  Matter of Cole v Nofri, 302, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Visitation with Imprisoned Father Terminated

In affirming Family Court’s termination of visitation with the imprisoned father, the Fourth Department explained the operative principles:

“An order of visitation cannot be modified unless there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order [that], if not addressed, would have an adverse effect on the child[’s] best interests” … .“[W]hile not dispositive, the express wishes of older and more mature children can support the finding of a change in circumstances”… .. Here, the evidence establishes that, since the entry of the prior order and as the child has matured, she has developed a strong desire not to visit the father. Additionally, Family Court credited the mother’s testimony that the father was using visitation time to attempt to reconcile with the mother rather than to interact with their child. Thus, we conclude that there has been a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant “ ‘an inquiry into whether the best interests of the [child] warranted a change in custody’… .  * * * We recognize that “[v]isitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in a child’s best interests even when the parent is incarcerated”….  In order to rebut the presumption, the party opposing visitation must establish by a preponderance of the evidence “that under all the circumstances visitation [with the incarcerated parent] would be harmful to the child’s welfare” … .  Matter of Rulinsky v West, 233, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

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