You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

Defendants Accused of Crimes Not Listed in the Controlling Statutes Are Not Eligible for the Judicial Diversion Program—The Statutes Do Not Allow for Judicial Discretion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, the Fourth Department determined a Monroe County Court Judge exceeded his authority by allowing defendants accused of crimes not listed in the relevant statute to participate in the judicial diversion program.  The Court wrote:

CPL 216.00 (1) provides as follows: “ ‘Eligible defendant’ means any person who stands charged in an indictment or a superior court information with a class B, C, D or E felony offense defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of the penal law or any other specified offense as defined in subdivision four of section 410.91…’”

It is undisputed that respondent defendants were not charged with any offenses under Penal Law §§ 220 or 221, or any specified offense in CPL 410.91. In our opinion, that ends the inquiry, and respondent defendants are not eligible for judicial diversion. It is well settled that “ ‘[w]here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plain meaning’ ” ….Likewise, “statutory interpretation always begins with the words of the statute” … .* * *

… [W]e agree with petitioner that she is also entitled to declaratory relief . “Although a declaratory judgment often revolves around a particular set of facts, [t]he remedy is available in cases where a constitutional question is involved or the legality or meaning of a statute is in question and no question of fact is involved” … . [T]he “criminal court’s ruling must have an obvious effect extending far beyond the matter pending before it so that it is likely that the issue will arise again with the same result in other cases” … .

[The opinion includes discussion of the nature and application of petitions for mandamus to compel and prohibition, and the County Court Judge’s argument that the use of judicial discretion re: the diversion program is allowed by statute.] Matter of Doorley v Hon John L. DeMarco, et al, 122, OP12-01563, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

Stuck Door Could Constitute a “Dangerous Condition”

In finding that a stuck door could constitute a “dangerous condition,” the Fourth Department wrote:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when, in the course of his employment, he was delivering a package to defendant’s property. He attempted to open a door but, according to plaintiff, the door would not open because it was stuck and defendant had prior notice that “the door stuck on occasion.” Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the sole ground that the “condition alleged by Plaintiff, [i.e.], the door that would not open on the date of the accident, is not an inherently dangerous condition giving rise to a duty in tort.” We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion.

As the Court of Appeals has written, the issue “whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally [one] of fact for the jury” … . With respect to summary judgment motions, it is well established that “[a] motion for summary judgment must be denied ‘if there is any significant doubt as to the existence of a triable issue [of fact], or if there is even arguably such an issue’ . . . Moreover, summary judgment is seldom appropriate in a negligence action” … . Bielicki v Excel Industries, Inc., 335, CA 12-01494, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

 

, ,

Question of Fact Raised About Owner’s Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint

The Fourth Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether a defendant/owner of the apartment had constructive notice of the presence of lead paint:

The deposition testimony of [defendant] was equivocal and inconsistent with respect to whether he had constructive notice of a dangerous lead paint condition on his property. For instance, Weston alternately testified that there “could have been” peeling or chipping paint, that he did not recall whether there was peeling or chipping paint, and that he had “no problem” with peeling or chipping paint. [Defendant] similarly contradicted himself as to whether he knew that a child lived in the apartment.  Regarding the other [Chapman v Silber (97 NY2d 9)] factors, [defendant] testified that he believed that he had a right to re-enter the apartment to make repairs, and he admitted that he knew by 1990 that lead was bad for children and that it could be found in houses like his. In short, [defendant’s] testimony … raised triable issues of fact regarding constructive notice … .  Watson v Priore, et al, 293, CA 12-00977, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

,

Cause of Action Based on the Failure to Warn Mechanic About Remote Car Starter Survived Summary Judgment

The denial of summary judgment was affirmed by the Fourth Department.  The plaintiff, a mechanic, was injured when a remote car starter started the car he was working on, dragging and running over him.  The Court determined plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support the theory that the defendants (the owners/users of the car in question) had a duty to warn the plaintiff the car was equipped with a remote starter which could start the car when it was in gear and the clutch was not depressed:

Contrary to the contention of defendants, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “Under general tort rules, a person may be negligent because he or she fails to warn another of known dangers or, in some cases, of those dangers [of] which he [or she] had reason to know”… .  Chambers v Evans, et al. 291, CA 12-01517, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

,

Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed

The Fourth Department determined that a defendant, Myers, was estopped from denying ownership of a vehicle, which was alleged to have been transferred to another defendant, Herring, because Myers’ license plates had not been removed:

With respect to the issue of ownership, we note that, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 420 (1), “[u]pon the transfer of ownership .. . of a motor vehicle . . . , its registration shall expire; and the seller . . . shall remove the number plates from the vehicle.” Consequently, “[a] registered owner who transfers a vehicle without removing the license plates is estopped as against an injured third party from denying ownership” … . Inasmuch as Myers admittedly left his license plates on the vehicle after purportedly transferring ownership to Herring, Myers is estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle as against plaintiffs. Marafferi, et al v Herring, et al, 267, CA 12-01829, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim

In this case a notice of claim was filed naming the Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMCC) as defendant. In the complaint, the individual doctors, employees of ECMCC, were named as defendants. Overruling precedent to the contrary, the Fourth Department determined it was not necessary to name the individual employees in the notice of claim in order to sue them. In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, the Fourth Department wrote:

 …[D]efendants contend that, although service of the notice of claim on the Employee Defendants was not required, plaintiff was nevertheless required to name those individual defendants in the notice of claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against them. Despite precedent supporting that contention, we agree with Supreme Court that there is no such requirement. * * *

Although “[p]recedents involving statutory interpretation are entitled to great stability” …, we conclude that the courts have misapplied or misunderstood the law in creating, by judicial fiat, a requirement for notices of claim that goes beyond those requirements set forth in the statute.

If the legislature had intended that there be a requirement that the individual employees be named in the notices of claim, it could easily have created such a requirement. Goodwin, et al, v Pretorius, et al, 101, CA 12-01441, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

, ,

Relation Back Doctrine Allowed Adding Doctor as Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action after Expiration of Statute of Limitations.

The relation back doctrine was applied in a medical malpractice action to allow the addition of a doctor as a defendant after the statute of limitations expired. The doctrine applies where “(1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well.”  The fact that the omission of the party may have been “negligent,” as opposed to a “mistake,” did not prevent the application of the doctrine. Kirk, et al, v University Ob-Gyn Associates, Inc., et al, 159, CA 12-01405, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

 

, , ,

Owner/Officer of Company Can Be Personally Liable for Toxic Emissions Released by Company.

Plaintiffs brought an action for personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by toxic emissions released by defendant Tonawanda Coke Corporation.  An owner and officer of Tonawanda Coke (Crane) moved to dismiss the cause of action suing him in an individual capacity.  In affirming the denial of that motion, the Fourth Department wrote:

Although “[a] corporate officer is not held liable for the negligence of the corporation merely because of his official relationship[,]” that officer will be held liable if it is established “that the officer was a participant in the wrongful conduct” … .Plaintiffs alleged in the first amended complaint that Crane was or should have been aware of the relevant environmental regulations, was ultimately responsible for reporting benzene emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, and personally supervised and exercised control over Tonawanda Coke’s operations … .Thus, plaintiffs have alleged that Crane actively participated in the wrongful conduct by approving the policies that allegedly caused the environmental contamination … .   Abbot v Tonawanda Coke Corporation, et al, 155, CA 12-01384, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

 

Absent Landowners Not Liable for Injuries at Party Hosted on their Property.

The Fourth Department reversed the trial court and granted a summary judgment motion brought by the owners of a golf course.  At a party that was not hosted by the landowners (and at which the landowners were not present), plaintiff was injured by another party-goer.  In determining the landowners had demonstrated they were not liable, the Fourth Department explained:

In general, “[landowners] are under a common-law duty to ‘control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control’ ” …Thus, landowners who are not present when a guest engages in harmful conduct and who have neither notice of nor control over such conduct are under no duty to protect others from such conduct …, unless the nature of the relationship between the landowners and the party host is such that the landowners, even if absent, are deemed to share in the duty imposed upon the host …. Pettit v Green, et al, 80, CA 12-01293, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

third party assault

Meaning of “Passageway” at Work Site Explained

The Fourth Department. in this negligence, Labor Law 200 and Labor Law 241 (6) action discussed the applicable theories of notice and liability for an allegedly dangerous condition just outside a portable toilet at the work site which caused plaintiff to fall and sustain injury. With respect to the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action, the Court determined that the area where the accident occurred was not a “passageway” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) which provides that passageways shall be kept free of obstructions.  Justice Whalen dissented, arguing that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) applied and there was an issue of fact whether the regulation was violated.  Steiger v LPCiminelli, Inc., et al, 1439, CA 12-01229, 4th Dept. 3-15-13​

 

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