You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

A STACK OF DRYWALL LEANING AGAINST A WALL AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING A DOORWAY FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE AS PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying( Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should not have been dismissed. A stack of drywall leaning against a wall and partially blocking a doorway fell over onto plaintiff’s ankle when plaintiff and another attempted to move it:

Although the drywall that fell on plaintiff was located on the floor and was not being hoisted or secured, issues of fact exist whether section 240 (1) applies to this case … .

… [The] Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar … is premised on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1) … .. Issues of fact exist whether the drywall was stored safely at the construction site and whether the drywall was a material pile that blocked a passageway … . Jesmain v Time Cap Dev. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01444, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: A stack of drywall which was leaning against the wall and partially blocked a doorway fell over on plaintiff’s ankle when he attempted to move it. That scenario presented issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendants on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action.

 

THE SIDEWALK ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS MOTORIZED BICYCLE WHEN HE FELL WAS NOT DESIGNED OR SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE; THEREFORE THE PROPERTY OWNER, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, COULD NOT RELY ON THE RECREATIONAL-USE STATUTE (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103) TO ESCAPE LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the recreational use statute (General Obligations Law 9-103(1)(a)) did not apply to the sidewalk on which plaintiff was riding his motorized bicycle when he fell. Therefore defendant was not entitled escape liability based upon the statute. The sidewalk was along a busy road on the Syracuse University campus and therefore was not designed or suitable for recreational use:

General Obligations Law § 9-103 (1) (a) provides that “an owner, lessee or occupant of premises . . . owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for . . . bicycle riding . . . or to give warning of any hazardous condition . . . on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.” The statute was enacted to “induce property owners, who might otherwise be reluctant to do so for fear of liability, to permit persons to come on their property to pursue specified activities” … . The rationale for the statute is that “outdoor recreation is good; New Yorkers need suitable places to engage in outdoor recreation; [and] more places will be made available if property owners do not have to worry about liability when recreationists come onto their land” … . The statute applies when two conditions are met: (1) the plaintiff is engaged in one of the activities identified in section 9-103 and (2) the plaintiff is recreating on land suitable for that activity … .

… In evaluating the suitability of a property for a particular activity, courts look to whether the premises is the “type of property which is not only physically conducive to the particular activity or sport but is also a type which would be appropriate for public use in pursuing the activity as recreation” … . … [W]e conclude that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the sidewalk at issue was not appropriate for public use in pursuing the recreational activity of bike riding. Plaintiff alleged that the sidewalk area where [plaintiff] fell was not designated by defendant for bike riding and was situated along a busy campus roadway near the front entrance of an academic building containing classrooms and offices. Such a property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity … . Inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply here, the court erred in granting the motion [to dismiss]. Delaney v Syracuse Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 00731, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: General Obligations Law 9-103 allows property owners to open up their property for recreational use, including bicycling, without fear of liability for injury to those using the property for recreational purposes, Here the sidewalk on which plaintiff was riding when he fell was nether designed nor appropriate for recreational use. Therefore the property owner could not take advantage of the recreational-use statute to escape liability.

 

, ,

IN A MED MAL ACTION PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT NEED NOT HAVE PRACTICED IN THE SAME SPECIALTY AS DEFENDANT DOCTOR TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert laid an adequate foundation for their qualifications in orthopedic medicine. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert need not have practiced in the same specialty as the defendant:

“[A] plaintiff’s expert need not have practiced in the same specialty as the defendant[]” … , and “any alleged lack of knowledge in a particular area of expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony” … . Here, plaintiffs’ expert is board certified as a medical examiner, an orthopedic surgeon and an arthroscopic laser surgeon. The expert completed a residency in general and orthopedic surgery. The expert is now a clinical instructor of orthopedic surgery and a clinical assistant professor of orthopedic surgery. The expert is affiliated with four hospitals and previously served as the chair of the department of orthopedic surgery at one hospital. Thus, we conclude that plaintiffs’ expert “had the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that [the expert’s] opinion[ ] . . . [is] reliable” … . McMahon-DeCarlo v Wickline, 2024 NY Slip Op 00730, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: Although plaintiff’s expert had not practiced in the same specialty as defendant doctor in this med mal action, plaintiff’s expert was qualified to offer reliable expert opinion evidence.

 

,

THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE OFFICER’S ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF A SWITCHBLADE; SWITCHBLADE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SWITCHBLADE SUPPRESSED; IN ADDITION, AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined (1) the search of defendant’s premises and the seizure of switchblade was not justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement and (2) the criminal possession of a weapon conviction must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon third:

The court reasoned that the officer’s entry into defendant’s residence was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search where ” ‘(1) the police . . . have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief [is] grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search [is] not . . . primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there [is] some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched’ ” … . … [T]he first and third elements of the emergency exception were not present at the time the officer entered defendant’s residence because defendant had been secured prior to that time and the officer who conducted the search testified that he did not believe there was anyone else in the residence at that time … .

We therefore modify the judgment by granting that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress the switchblade knife and defendant’s statements relating to the switchblade knife, reversing that part of the judgment convicting defendant of CPW in the third degree as it relates to the switchblade knife, and dismissing count 4 of the indictment … . People v Lee, 2024 NY Slip Op 00718, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: At the time the officer entered defendant’s residence and seized a switchblade all parties had been secured and removed from the residence. The emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.

 

,

THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL SERVICES WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A CLERK’S JUDGMENT FOR A SUM CERTAIN; DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS WITH NOTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the action for damages for medical services was not appropriate for a clerk’s judgment for a sum certain pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) and (2) defendant raised a question of fact about whether he was served with the summons with notice pursuant to CPLR 308(4):

… [T]he Clerk lacked authority under CPLR 3215 (a) to enter the default judgment. “CPLR 3215 (a) allows a party to seek a default judgment by application to the clerk if the claim is ‘for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain’ ” … . “The limitation of clerk’s judgments to claims for a sum certain contemplates a situation in which, once liability has been established, there can be no dispute as to the amount due” … . “The statute is intended to apply to only the most liquidated and undisputable of claims, such as actions on money judgments and negotiable instruments” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that this action, which seeks to recover damages for medical services, is not for a sum certain or for a sum that by computation can be made certain … . * * *

Defendant submitted an affidavit in which he averred, inter alia, that he lived in the upstairs apartment of a two-story, two-family house, and that, because his apartment was not specified on the papers described in the process server’s affidavit of service, he never received service … . State of New York v Walker, 2024 NY Slip Op 00716, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: An action for a clerk’s judgment for a sum certain is only appropriate where there is absolutely no dispute about the amount due, not here in a case seeking damages for medical services.

 

THE BED OF A VAN IS NOT AN ELEVATED WORK SURFACE FOR PURPOSES OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted the the bed of a van is not considered an elevated work surface for purposes of Labor Law 240(1):

Plaintiff and defendant’s principal moved the loaner jack to the edge of the van bed in preparation for lifting the device onto a four-wheeled cart. Plaintiff was injured when he and defendant’s principal lifted the loaner jack to place it onto the cart. * * *

The bed of a truck or similar vehicle does not constitute an elevated work surface for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) … , and the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) do not apply where a plaintiff is injured while unloading equipment from the bed of a vehicle … . Inasmuch as there is no dispute that plaintiff’s injury occurred as he helped lift the loaner jack from the bed of defendant’s vehicle, the court properly determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply. Triest v Nixon Equip. Servs., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00714, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department held that the bed of a van was not an elevated work surface for purposes of Labor Law 240(1).

 

THE COVID STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, explained how the COVID toll of the statute of limitations works:

“A toll does not extend the statute of limitations indefinitely but merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for a finite and, in this instance, readily identifiable time period” … . “[T]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the time in which the plaintiff can commence an action” (id.). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 20, 2020, the Governor issued [an] Executive Order … , which tolled “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to . . . the civil practice law and rules . . . from the date of this order until April 19, 2020.” The Governor later issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the tolling period through November 3, 2020 … . Thus, here, the statute of limitations was tolled from March 20, 2020, at which time 289 days remained in the limitations period, until November 3, 2020, and thereafter the “statute of limitations began to run again, expiring on [August 19, 2021]” … . State of New York v Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00709, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: The number of days left on the statute of limitations when the COVID toll was imposed remains when the toll is lifted.

 

,

THE STREET REPAIR WORK DONE BY THE CITY IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS DONE MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE AND DETERIORATED GRADUALLY OVER TIME; IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO BE LIABLE FOR CREATING THE DANGEROUS CONDITION THE DEFECT MUST HAVE BEEN THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF THE WORK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, dismissed the action against the city in this slip and fall case. There was a question whether the city repair to the street deteriorated over a period of a year or more. But in order to be liable for creating a dangerous condition, the defect must be the “immediate result” of the work done:

Plaintiffs failed to raise “a triable issue of fact concerning the applicability of [an] exception to the prior written notice requirement, i.e., whether the City created the allegedly dangerous condition through an affirmative act of negligence” … . The exception is limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition. Although the record supports the inference that the City may have created a dangerous condition by failing to replace a temporary cold patch with a permanent repair, the resulting allegedly dangerous condition here developed over a period greater than a year and did not “immediately result” from the City’s work … . Graham v City of Syracuse, 2024 NY Slip Op 00710, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case, in order for a city to be liable for creating the dangerous condition, the defect must be the “immediate result” of the work done by the city. Here the work was done more than a year before and the defect developed gradually over time. The city was not liable.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BUT A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE TO COME IN WITHOUT A STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department majority affirmed defendant’s conviction, but a two-justice dissent argument defense counsel allowed prejudicial evidence to come in without any strategic justification:

From the dissent:

Meaningful representation is “reasonable competence, not perfect representation” … . “However it is elementary that the right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense . . . and who is familiar with, and able to employ at trial basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … . “Whether counsel has adequately performed these functions is necessarily a question of degree, in which cumulative errors particularly on basic points essential to the defense, are often found to be determinative” … .

Here, when the People sought to introduce the order of protection in evidence, defense counsel failed to seek removal of the portion of that order stating the crimes for which defendant had previously been convicted, despite the fact that Supreme Court previously denied the People’s Sandoval application. Moreover, as a direct result of defense counsel’s open-ended questions, a witness stated during cross-examination that defendant was previously incarcerated. Most critically, however, defense counsel’s open-ended questioning of the victim during cross-examination revealed that defendant had, on a prior occasion, broken into her home through the basement window. In this prosecution for, inter alia, burglary in the first degree, we cannot foresee evidence being more prejudicial than testimony elicited by his own counsel that defendant previously committed the same criminal act against the same victim. People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 00711, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: The majority affirmed, but two dissenting judges argued defense counsel unnecessarily put evidence which was highly prejudicial to his client before the jury.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO EXPRESSED SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT BEING ABLE SERVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE HER ULTIMATE STATEMENT SHE COULD DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO SERVE; THE NEW CPL ARTICLE 245 DISCOVERY STATUTES IMPOSE NEW BURDENS ON THE PEOPLE ENCOMPASSING ROSARIO AND BRADY MATERIAL AND EXTENDING TO DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE PEOPLE’S POSSESSION, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENSE CAN ACCESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, offered important, substantial discussions of (1) how to handle a juror who expresses doubt about the ability to serve on the jury, and (2) the new, much broader and far-reaching disclosure requirements imposed upon the People by the CPL Article 245. The juror expressed doubt about her ability to serve because of her family obligations, her indecisiveness and her inability to follow the orders and instructions of the court. Ultimately when asked if she thought she could do what is necessary to be a juror, she said “yes.” The Fourth Department held the defense challenge to the juror should not have been denied. On the CPL Article 245 issue, the Fourth Department explained that the statute goes far beyond the old, pre-statute, criteria for turning over Rosario and Brady material, to include collecting and turning over discovery from agencies outside the prosecutor’s office, even if the defendant could gain access to those that discovery him or herself: The Fourth Department held the prosecutor committed numerous violations of CPL Article 245 and left it to the judge in the next trial to impose sanctions:

… [T]he prospective juror never stated, unequivocally or otherwise, that she would follow the court’s instructions and apply the law to the facts. Nor did she state that her child care concerns had been alleviated such that she could devote her undivided attention to the trial.

Just as a “general statement of impartiality that does not explicitly address the specific cause of the preexisting bias is not sufficient” … , a general statement from a prospective juror that they can do what it takes to be a juror is not sufficient to rehabilitate the prospective juror where, as here, the prospective juror had previously offered specific reasons for being unable to serve impartially. * * *

Although transcripts that are not in the People’s possession and control are not subject to Brady and Rosario disclosure requirements … , that fact is of no moment for purposes of CPL 245.20. Even where documents are “beyond the prosecutor’s control under Rosario and constructive possession under CPL 245.20 (2), the presumption of openness, … the duty to maintain the flow of information … , the continuing duty to disclose … , and, perhaps most importantly, the goals of article 245 require that when the prosecutor becomes aware [after making the requisite reasonable inquiries] that an agency outside their control holds information that relates to the subject matter of the case, best practice dictates that the People take steps . . . to obtain those records notwithstanding the fact [that] the information may be available to the defendant by equivalent process” … . People v Heverly, 2024 NY Slip Op 00524, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point; A juror who expresses serious doubts about being able to serve, doubts which are not addressed by further questioning, should be excluded, even if the juror ultimately states he or she can do what is necessary to serve.

Practice Point: CPL Article 245 has drastically expanded the burden on the People to timely turn over discovery, including Rosario and Brady material and documents which are not in the People’s possession, even where the defense also has access to those documents. The is an important discussion of the new criminal discovery rules which should be required reading for defense counsel, prosecutors and judges.

 

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