You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Denial of Motion for Severance Upheld—Defendant Suing for Two Types of Injuries Allegedly Linked to Two Different Groups of Defendants​

In this case the plaintiff alleged his injuries were the result of exposure to coal tar pitch and asbestos “while employed as a laborer in the carbon electrode industry.”  The complaint separated the defendants into two groups, three companies were named with respect to the coal tar pitch (the appellants), and the other defendants were named with respect to the asbestos.  The appellants appealed the denial of their severance motion.  In affirming the denial of severance, the Fourth Department wrote:

“The determination of whether to grant or deny a request for a severance pursuant to CPLR 603 is a matter of judicial discretion, which should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right of the party seeking the severance” The burden is on the party seeking the severance to show that “a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice” …Severance is appropriate where “individual issues predominate, concerning particular circumstances applicable to each [defendant] . . . [and there] is the possibility of confusion for the jury” …. Here, although appellants contended that a joint trial might result in juror confusion and would be inappropriate because plaintiff’s alleged injuries with respect to his exposure to coal tar pitch fumes and to asbestos were distinct, they did not satisfy their burden of establishing that a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice.  In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v Niagara Insulations, Inc, et al, CA 12-01809, 238, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Failure to Pay Pension Benefits to Wife Pursuant to Divorce Was an Action which Accrued Anew Each Time a Payment Was Missed for Statute of Limitations Purposes—Plaintiff Could Sue Only for Missed Payments Going Back Six Years from When Payments Began

Pursuant to a divorce, plaintiff was entitled to a share of her husband’s pension benefits starting in 1991.  Plaintiff did not start receiving the payments until 2005.  She did not bring an action on the unpaid benefits between 1991 and 2005 until 2010.  The Fourth Department determined that a cause of action for the unpaid benefits accrued anew when each payment was missed.  Because the statute of limitations is six years, the plaintiff could sue only for the unpaid benefits which accrued during the six years prior to when her action was started in 2010.  Bielecki v Bielecki, CA 12-01393, 264, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Court Could Not Require Parolee to Submit Psychological and Medical Proof In Support of Name-Change Petition

In this case the Fourth Department determined the court could not require petitioner, a parolee, to provide psychological and medical proof in support of a petition for a name change.  The Fourth Department wrote:

 …[W]e agree with petitioner that the court erred in requiring him to provide psychological and medical proof in support of the amended petition; such proof is irrelevant when the petitioner seeks only to assume a different name, “not a declaration of a gender ‘change[] from male to female’ ” …. Here, petitioner has not requested a declaration regarding gender, but by the amended petition has asked the court “only to sanction legally petitioner’s desire for a change of name, after satisfying itself that petitioner has no fraudulent purpose for doing so and that no other person’s rights are interfered with thereby” ….  Matter of Anonymous, CA 12-02056, 426, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

Criteria for Non-Negligent Explanation for Striking Vehicle from Behind Described​​​​

In finding the defendant failed to demonstrate a non-negligent reason for his striking the plaintiff’s vehicle from behind (in defendant’s motion for summary judgment), the Fourth Department explained:

A rear-end collision with a vehicle that is stopped or is in the process of stopping ‘creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the [driver] of the rearmost vehicle, thereby requiring that [driver] to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision’ ” …. We agree with plaintiff that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the accident was the result of unanticipated brake failure, a nonnegligent explanation alleged by defendant in support of his cross motion… “Where, as here, .. . defendant[] intend[s] ‘to lay the blame for the accident on brake failure, it [is] incumbent upon [him] to show that the problem with the brakes was unanticipated, and that [he] had exercised reasonable care to keep them in good working order’ ” … .  Lyons v Zeman, CA 12-02074, 479, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , ,

“Speaking Authorizations” Re Non-Party Healthcare Providers in Lead-Paint Injury Case Okay/But Not Okay for Non-Party Educators

In a lead-paint injury case, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted a motion to preclude evidence of plaintiff’s mental or physical condition unless plaintiff provided defendant with so-called “speaking authorizations” allowing defendant to communicate with non-party healthcare providers about the plaintiff’s injuries.  However, the Fourth Department did not agree with Supreme Court’s grant of the same motion with respect to non-party educators (two justices dissented on that issue):

In Arons v Jutkowitz …, the Court of Appeals provided the framework for conducting discovery with regard to nonparty healthcare providers, which includes the use of speaking authorizations. Arons, however, does not authorize defendant to obtain speaking authorizations for plaintiff’s educators. We decline to extend Arons to require production of speaking authorizations to anyone other than nonparty healthcare providers. The Arons decision is narrow in scope and provides a framework as to how parties must procedurally comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 when attempting to speak with an adverse party’s treating physician. Defendant made no showing that the discovery devices available under the CPLR and the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts were inadequate to obtain the necessary discovery. McCarter v Woods, CA 12-00678, 1117, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

Okay to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Medical Reports Linking Injury to Lead Paint or Be Precluded from Introducing Such Evidence

In a lead-paint injury action, defendants moved to compel plaintiff to produce medical reports linking the injuries to lead and to provide an amended bill of particulars to reflect those injuries. In the alternative the defendants moved to preclude proof of plaintiff’s injuries in the absence of such medical reports.  Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and the Fourth Department affirmed.  In addition, the Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court was not required to take judicial notice of the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 USC 4851), which provides a private right of action for lead-related damages, because plaintiff was not “relying” on the statute.  Hamilton v Miller…, CA 12-01574, 355, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Statements Made by Defendant During First 15 Hours of a 60-Hour Interrogation Not Coerced

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly ruled that the defendant’s statements during the first 15 hours of a 60-hour interrogation need not be suppressed as the product of coercion.  People v Collins, KA 09-00932, 1367, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

,

Suppression Should Have Been Granted—People Failed to Meet Their Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing​

The Fourth Department ruled that suppression of tangible evidence and statements should have been granted because the People failed to meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing by demonstrating the legality of the police conduct.  The Fourth Department further determined that the error was not harmless with respect to all but one of the charges:

We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking suppression of the physical evidence that was seized from his vehicle and the statements he made to New York State Police Investigators, inasmuch as the People failed to meet their “burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance” … . * * *
Because the People failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing establishing the legality of the police conduct, defendant’s purported consent to the search of his vehicle was involuntary and all evidence seized from the vehicle as a result of that consent should have been suppressed … .Additionally, defendant’s statements to the police must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.. .  People v Purdy, KA 12-00534, 488, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Criteria for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement Explained

The Fourth Department noted the criteria for a defendant’s right to specific performance of a plea agreement (criteria not met in this case):
“ ‘The remedy of specific performance in the context of plea agreements applies where a defendant has been placed in a no-return position in reliance on the plea agreement . . . , such that specific performance is warranted as a matter of essential fairness’ ” … Inasmuch as neither the prosecution nor the defense had taken any action on the second plea agreement …defendant was not placed in a “ ‘no-return position’ ” in reliance on the second plea agreement and is thus not entitled to specific performance of that agreement… . People v Weather, KA 11-01247, 482, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

Robbery Guilty Plea Rendered Insufficient By Statement Weapon Used Was “Fake”

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s robbery convictions (by guilty pleas) because, in the plea allocution, defendant indicated the weapon involved was “fake.” People v Burroughs, KA 10-00663, 462, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

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