You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Employer’s Failure to Demonstrate a Proper Inquiry Was Made to Determine Whether Reasonable Accommodations Were Possible for a Disabled Employee Precluded Summary Judgment

In affirming the denial of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant-employer in an employment (disability) discrimination action, the Fourth Department determined the employer did not eliminate all the triable issues of fact concerning whether reasonable accommodation to the employee’s needs was possible:

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden of establishing that “plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the position of a” center manager …, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact “whether, ‘upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, [plaintiff was qualified to hold his position and to] perform [ ] in a reasonable manner’ the essential function of that position” … . [U]nder the broad[ ] protections afforded by the State [Human Rights Law], the first step in providing a reasonable accommodation is to engage in a good faith interactive process that assesses the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … .Thus, “[t]he need for individualized inquiry when making a determination of reasonable accommodation is deeply embedded in the fabric of disability rights law . . . [E]mployers (and courts) must make a clear, fact-specific inquiry about each individual’s circumstance” … .In an employment discrimination case based on allegations of disability discrimination, “summary judgment is not available where there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer has engaged in a good faith interactive process” … .Here, the court properly determined that defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to, inter alia, whether defendant engaged in an interactive process to ascertain plaintiff’s needs and whether a reasonable accommodation was possible. Martin v United Parcel Service of America, Inc., 135, CA 12-01377, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

, ,

Failure to Object to Curative Instruction Precludes Appeal

A curative instruction regarding admitted evidence was requested by the defendant and the court gave the requested instruction to the jury.  The defendant did not object to the instruction and did not seek a mistrial.  Therefore, the curative instruction “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction,” precluding appeal on that issue.  People v Mendez, 47, KA 09-01194, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Prior Court Ruling Can Not Be Altered Even If Erroneous

In reversing the trial court’s termination of the plaintiff-husband’s obligation to provide defendant-wife with medical coverage, the Fourth Department explained that it must apply the doctrine of res judicata, even where  the prior ruling had been erroneously decided:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in terminating plaintiff’s obligation to provide her with medical insurance coverage inasmuch as our prior order requires plaintiff to provide her with that coverage. As a general rule, the doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of previously adjudicated disputes “even where further investigation of the law or facts indicates that the controversy has been erroneously decided, whether due to oversight by the parties or error by the courts” … .As relevant here, “a final judgment of divorce settles the parties’ rights pertaining not only to those issues that were actually litigated, but also to those that could have been litigated” … .“[A]bsent unusual circumstances or explicit statutory authorization, the provisions of [such a] judgment are final and binding on the parties, and may be modified only upon direct challenge” … .Here, plaintiff did not take an appeal from our prior order, seek reargument of that order, or make a proper application to modify it. He is therefore foreclosed from collaterally attacking it in the context of this action … . Lomaglio v Lomaglio, 142, CA 12-01317, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

, ,

In SORA Context, Mild Mental Retardation Is Not a “Mental Disability”

In the context of a SORA determination, the Fourth Department noted that proof the victim had been diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded did not demonstrate the victim suffered from a “mental disability” within the meaning of the Correction Law:

We agree with defendant, however, that the People failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence that the victim of the underlying crime suffered from a “mental disability” (see generally Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and thus the court erred in assessing 20 points against him under risk factor 6. Although the People presented evidence that the victim was diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded, “[t]he law does not presume that a person with mental retardation is unable to consent to sexual [activity], . . . and proof of incapacity must come from facts other than mental retardation alone” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 86). Here, the remaining evidence in the record relating to the victim’s capacity failed to establish that she was “incapable of appraising the nature of [her] own sexual conduct” (id. at 87; see People v Easley, 42 NY2d 50, 55-57; cf. People v Jackson, 70 AD3d 1385, 1385, lv denied 14 NY3d 714).  People v Green, 254, KA 11-00973, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

17-Year Pre-Indictment Delay Did Not Violate Right to Speedy Trial

A 17-year pre-indictment delay did not violate defendant’s right to a speedy trial.  The Fourth Department wrote:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that the 17-year preindictment delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.We reject that contention. In examining the Taranovich factors (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445), we conclude that, although the 17-year preindictment delay was substantial, the nature of the charge was serious, and defendant remained at liberty until he was indicted. Moreover, the People met their burden of establishing a good-faith basis for the delay (see People v Decker, 13 NY3d 12, 14-16; People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1285, lv denied 17 NY3d 793). In particular, they established that there was insufficient evidence to charge defendant shortly after the crimes occurred, and it was not until a witness gave new information to the police that identified defendant as the perpetrator and DNA testing was completed that the People brought the charges against defendant. While the delay may have caused some degree of prejudice to defendant, “ ‘a determination made in good faith to delay prosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive defendant of due process even though there may be some prejudice to defendant’ ” (Decker, 13 NY3d at 14).  People v Gaston, 176, KA 11-00406, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Violation of Probation Petition May Be Based Upon Hearsay

The Fourth Department determined that a “violation of probation” petition need not include non-hearsay allegation establishing every element of the violation charged:

…[A]lthough Family Court Act § 360.2 (2) specifically requires that VOP petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings contain “[n]on[]hearsay allegations . . . establish[ing], if true, every violation charged,” there is no corresponding requirement in CPL article 410.  At most, CPL 410.70 (2) requires that the court “file or cause to be filed . . . a statement setting forth the condition or conditions of the sentence violated and a reasonable description of the time, place and manner in which the violation occurred.”There is no requirement that the statement contain nonhearsay allegations.

In any event, we agree with the People that, were there such a requirement in the CPL, the reasoning of Matter of Markim Q. (7 NY3d 405, 410-411) would apply such that the lack of nonhearsay allegations in the VOP petition would not constitute a jurisdictional defect. “A VOP petition, [unlike an original accusatory instrument], is not the foundation of the court’s jurisdiction. It does not commence a new proceeding, but is simply a new step in an existing one” (id. at 410). People v Julius, 175, KA 11-01384, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

 

 

,

Court’s Failure to Inquire Further When It Was Not Clear Defendant’s Plea Was Knowing and Voluntary Required Vacation of Plea

In a criminal contempt (first degree) case, the Fourth Department determined defendant’s plea colloquy “negated essential elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty inasmuch as his colloquy indicated that the order of protection was not issued pursuant to the statutory sections set forth in Penal Law [section] 215.51 (c), and that the predicate conviction was not based upon a violation of such an order of protection.”  In light of the colloquy, County Court had a duty to inquire further to make sure the plea was knowing and voluntary.  The plea was vacated. People v Coleman, 25, KA 09-01157, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

 

,

Failure of Sentencing Court to Inform Defendant of Period of Post-Release Supervision Required Release after Sentence Served

The Department of Corrections cannot remedy a court’s failure to impose a period of post-release supervision.  In this case the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition was granted and the prisoner, who had served his sentence, was released.  The Fourth Department determined that the sentencing court’s statement—“the supervisory period under the violent felony offender sentencing statute will be five years, which means when you come out on parole, you will be on five years of parole at the conclusion of the ten-year sentence”—did not pronounce the period of post-release supervision as required by Criminal Procedure Law 380.20.  People ex rel Finch v Brown, 23, KAH 11-00862, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

, ,

County Executive Has Authority to Commence Lawsuit Without Resolution from County Legislature

The Fourth Department determined the Erie County Executive had the authority to bring a lawsuit alleging fraud on the part of a County Commissioner which resulted in the payment of more than $4,000,000 for goods and services that had not been provided.  The defendant contended the County could not bring the suit absent a resolution by the County Legislature.  The Fourth Department wrote:

There is no dispute that the County Legislature did not pass a resolution authorizing the commencement of this action. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, we conclude that, notwithstanding the absence of such a resolution, the County Executive was empowered to commence this action on behalf of the County (see Matter of County of Rockland v Town of Clarkstown, 167 Misc 2d 367, 371). Under the County Charter, the County Executive is the Chief Executive Officer, the administrative head of the County government, and the Chief Budget Officer of the County.The County Charter grants the County Executive “all necessary incidental powers to perform and exercise any of the duties and functions specified . . . or lawfully delegated to him” (Erie County Charter § 302 [former (n)], now [m]).The County Executive is empowered by the County Charter to authorize the County Attorney to commence civil litigation to enforce any of the duties and functions lawfully designated to the County Executive (see § 602; see also § 302 [former (m)], now [l]; [former (n)], now [m]).Inasmuch as this action seeks to recover over $4 million dollars of the County’s funds that were allegedly improperly paid under the M/A-Com contract as a result of defendant’s alleged fraud, we conclude that the County Executive’s duties as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Budget Officer of the County clearly embrace the subject matter of this action and empower him to authorize the County Attorney to commence the litigation (see Rockland County, 167 Misc 2d at 371).  Justices Sconiers and Whalen disagreed in a substantial dissent.  County of Erie v M/A-Com, Inc., et al, 1184, CA 12-00075, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

Performance and Design Specification Contracts Defined

This breach of contract case concerned the installation of “jet grout bottom seal” at a wastewater treatment plant.  In the course of its discussion, the Fourth Department explained the difference between performance and design specification contracts:

We … conclude that there are issues of fact concerning whether the contract was one of performance or design specification, thus precluding summary judgment with respect to the additional expenses that plaintiff allegedly incurred in remediating the jet grout bottom seal. “A performance specification [contract] requires a contractor to produce a specific result without specifying the particular method or means of achieving that result” (Fruin-Colnon Corp. v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 180 AD2d 222, 229).“In other words, the contractual risk of nonperformance is upon the contractor” (id.). In contrast, a design specification contract is one in which “the owner specifies the design, materials and methods and impliedly warrants their feasibility and sufficiency” (id.).     “In that instance, the contractor’s guarantee . . . is limited to the quality of the materials and workmanship employed in following the owner’s design” (id. at 230). The proper characterization of a construction contract as one of either performance or design specification “depends upon the language of the contract as a whole,” and relevant factors in such an inquiry “include the nature and degree of the contractor’s involvement in the specification process, and the degree to which the contractor is allowed to exercise discretion in carrying out its performance” ​(id.).Here, the unresolved issues of fact with respect to those factors, particularly as to plaintiff’s ability to change the design without Falter’s approval, precludes a determination whether as a matter of law the subject contract is one of either performance or design specification, and thus whether plaintiff may recover expenses incurred in remediating the jet grout bottom seal.  Howard Baker, Inc. v C.O. Falter Construction Corp., et al, 1441, CA 12-00398, 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