You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Suspended Sentence for Non-Payment of Support Could Not Be Revoked Without Hearing

The Fourth Department ruled that Family Court could not revoke a suspended jail sentence for non-payment of support by the father without giving the father the chance to rebut the allegations against him:

The Support Magistrate previously had issued an order “on consent” in November 2011 (November order), setting forth that the father admitted that he willfully violated the February order and finding him in willful violation of the February order. The Support Magistrate imposed a sentence of four months in jail but suspended the sentence on the condition that the father did not miss two consecutive support payments. *  *  *

Although the court had the discretion to revoke the suspension of the jail sentence, the court erred in doing so without first affording the father “an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses . . . on the issue whether good cause existed to revoke the suspension of the sentence” (Matter of Thompson v Thompson, 59 AD3d 1104, 1105, quoting Family Ct Act § 433 [a] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ontario County Dept. of Social Servs. v Hinckley, 226 AD2d 1126, 1126). “No specific form of a hearing is required, but at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” (Thompson, 59 AD3d at 1105 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “ ‘[I]t is well settled that neither a colloquy between a respondent and Family Court nor between a respondent’s counsel and the court is sufficient to constitute the required hearing’ ” (id.). Here, there was only the admission of nonpayment by the father’s attorney, which was insufficient (see id.), and there was no opportunity for the father to present evidence rebutting the allegations against him.  In the Matter of Davis v Bond, 281, CAF 12-00553, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Duty to Defend

In finding that an insurance company was required to defend, the Fourth Department explained the relevant criteria in the context of a summary judgment motion:

An insurer’s duty to defend is “ ‘exceedingly broad’ and an insurer will be called upon to provide a defense whenever the allegations of the complaint ‘suggest . . . a reasonable possibility of coverage’ ”.. .“If, liberally construed, the claim is within the embrace of the policy, the insurer must come forward to defend its insured no matter how groundless, false or baseless the suit may be” ….Thus, the duty to defend exists “ ‘even though facts outside the four corners of [the] pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered’ ” ….

The insured has the initial burden of establishing coverage under an insurance policy while the insurer bears the burden of proving that an exclusion in the policy applies to defeat coverage … .“[E]xclusions are subject to strict construction and must be read narrowly” … .In order to establish that an exclusion defeats coverage, the insurer has the “heavy burden” of establishing that the exclusion is expressed in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and is applicable to the facts ….An insurer “will be required to ‘provide a defense unless it can “demonstrate that the allegations of the complaint cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and, further, that the allegations, [in toto], are subject to no other interpretation” ’ ” … .  Georgetown Capital Group, Inc. v Everest National Insurance Company, 82, CA 12-01337, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Counsel for Nonparty Witness Cannot Participate in Deposition

The Fourth Department determined that counsel for a nonparty witness cannot object, i.e., participate, in a deposition of that witness.  The Court wrote:

…“[C]ounsel for a nonparty witness does not have a right to object during or otherwise to participate in a pretrial deposition.CPLR 3113 (c) provides that the examination and cross-examination of deposition witnesses ‘shall proceed as permitted in the trial of actions in open court’ ” (id. [emphasis added]), and it is axiomatic that counsel for a nonparty witness is not permitted to object or otherwise participate in a trial (see e.g. id.).We recognize that 22 NYCRR 221.2 and 221.3 may be viewed as being in conflict with CPLR 3113 (c) inasmuch as sections 221.2 and 221.3 provide that an “attorney” may not interrupt a deposition except in specified circumstances.Nevertheless, it is well established that, in the event of a conflict between a statute and a regulation, the statute controls (seeMatter of Hellner v Board of Educ. of Wilson Cent. School Dist., 78 AD3d 1649, 1651).  Justices Fahey and Martoche dissented in a memorandum. Sciara v Surgical Associates of Western New York, P.C., et al, 1466, CA 12-00809, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Attorney Conflict Affected Defense Requiring Reversal.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because his attorney had a conflict of interest.  The attorney had represented someone who was heard on a recording talking to the defendant. The People sought to introduce the recording in evidence to prove defendant’s motive and intent for the charged burglary. The Fourth Department explained the procedure and criteria for determining whether such a conflict of interest requires reversal.  One of the criteria is that the conflict affect the conduct of the defense, which the Fourth Department found to have occurred in this case.  People vs McGillicuddy, 7 12-00530 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

, ,

Although Victim Was Shot Injuries Did Not Constitute “Serious Physical Injury” Within Meaning of Assault 1st Statute.

Although the victim was shot in the chest and arm, the Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence of serious physical injury and reduced the Assault 1st conviction to Attempted Assault 1st.  The Court did not reach the issue whether the indictment was supported by legally sufficient evidence because the issue was not raised in the omnibus motion (suggesting that a conviction does not preclude raising insufficient-evidence-to-indict on appeal).  People vs Madera, 6, KA 11-00450 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

,

No Right to Counsel in Presentence Interview.

There is no right to counsel in a presentence interview with the probation department.  People vs McNamara, 1472, KA 12-00204 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

,

Multiplicitous Indictment Count Dismissed in the Interest of Justice.

The Fourth Department dismissed one count of an indictment finding the indictment “multiplicitous” (charging a single offense in more than one count).  The error was not preserved but the Court reviewed the issue “in the interest of justice.”  People vs Quinn, 1131, KA 11-00278 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

,

Sentence Could Be Challenged In Spite of Waiver of Appeal.

A valid waiver of the right to appeal did not preclude defendant from challenging the severity of his sentence where the sentencing court did not inform the defendant of the maximum term of incarceration and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver.  People vs Scott, 107, KA 11-01655 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

Frisk of Defendant After a Vehicle Stop Okay, Officer Had Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity and an Articulable Basis to Fear for His Safety.

The Fourth Department determined a police officer had the right to frisk the passengers in a lawfully stopped car to the extent necessary to protect his safety because he was acting on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for his own safety.   Before the defendant got into the car which was stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer had observed the defendant “engage in a number of ‘handshakes’ “which the officer determined were either hand to hand drug sales or “gang signals.”  When the car was stopped the officer saw the defendant either take something out of or put something into his pocket. People vs Daniels, 9, KA 09-287 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

DeBour, vehicle stop, street stops, search

,

Suppression Motion Should Not Have Been Granted, Officers Had “Objective Credible Reason” to Approach.

In an appeal by the People, the Fourth Department determined the suppression motion should not have been granted for the reasons relied on by the suppression court.  The Fourth Department found that the officers who approached two men and asked the non-threatening question “What’s up guys” had “an objective credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality” for doing so.  The men were seen walking from a private driveway toward a car in a public parking lot for a recreation area.  The men were dressed “pretty heavy” for the mid-70-degree weather, unlike the bikers and hikers who use the park.  And there had been a number of daytime burglaries in the area.  People vs Johnston, 8, KA 12-01414 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

DeBour, street stops

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy