You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

A DEFENDANT WHO MOVES TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been treated as a motion to vacate based on an excusable default. The defendant raised a question of fact about whether he was properly served by demonstrating the address at issue did not exist. There was no requirement that defendant demonstrate a reasonable excuse:

Where, as here, a defendant moves to vacate a judgment entered upon [the defendant’s] default in appearing or answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction [under CPLR 5015 (a) (4)], the defendant is not required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, it is immaterial when defendant first learned of the judgment.

With respect to the merits, defendant contended in support of his motion that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not properly served with the supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). “Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served[, but] . . . a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit” … . We agree with defendant that, by submitting uncontradicted evidence that the address listed in the affidavit of service does not exist, he overcame the presumption of proper service and created “a genuine question” whether the “nail and mail” service used here was effected in accordance with the statute … . L&W Supply Corp. v Built-Rite Drywall Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05079, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was purportedly served by “nail and mail.” Defendant demonstrated the address in the affidavit of service did not exist. Therefore defendant was entitled to a hearing. There was no need for defendant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default.

 

,

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING WITH LIVE WITNESSES AT WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY IN THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF HIS CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; SUPREME COURT HAD ORDERED A HEARING CONDUCTED BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-sex-offender was entitled to a live hearing on his petition for discharge from confinement pursuant to the Menta Hygiene Law. Supreme Court had ordered that the hearing be conducted by written submissions:

… Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d) requires the court to “hold an evidentiary hearing as to retention of [an offender] . . . if it appears from one of the annual submissions to the court under [§ 10.09 (c)] . . . that the [offender] has petitioned, or has not affirmatively waived the right to petition, for discharge.” Petitioner here has petitioned for annual review, and he is therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing with live witness testimony where he “may, as a matter of right, testify in his . . . own behalf, call and examine other witnesses, and produce other evidence in his . . . behalf” … . Matter of Charles L. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05075, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Supreme Court had ordered the annual review of petitioner-sex-offender’s confinement be conducted by written submissions. Petitioner, however, pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, was entitled to a hearing with live witnesses at which he may testify.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE TO HEALTHCARE PERSONNEL AND MEDICAL RECORDS WERE RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial (liability versus damages) in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff made statements to medical personnel which were relevant to liability:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he fell from an “upper patio or balcony” of an apartment building … . We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants-respondents’ motion to bifurcate the trial with respect to the issues of liability and damages. “As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried separately” … . Here, however, we conclude that the issue of liability is not distinct from the issue of plaintiff’s injuries because plaintiff made statements to several of his medical care providers following his fall that render the testimony of several medical witnesses as well as hospital and medical records relevant to the liability phase of the trial. Plaintiff has thus established that bifurcation would not “assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” … .  Bogumil v Greenbaum Family Holdings, LP, 2023 NY Slip Op 05069, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: It is usual to bifurcate the liability and damages aspects of negligence trials. Here plaintiff’s statements to medical personnel and his medical records were relevant to liability as well as damages. The motion to bifurcate should not, therefore, have been granted.

 

,

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sheriffs did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion” to justify the stop of defendant’s vehicle in a mall parking lot. A deputy had seen a surveillance video showing defendant going into the mall with empty bags from a store which was not in the mall and leaving a few minutes later with items in the bags:

The deputies readily acknowledged … that bringing outside bags into the mall was not unlawful or violative of mall policy, that it was not uncommon for mall visitors to return merchandise in bags that were not from the original store, and that mall visitors could properly put merchandise into personal, non-store bags if it was paid for. The first deputy conceded that, while viewing the live surveillance video, he did not observe defendant or the other individuals stealing anything from the subject store, and the second deputy likewise acknowledged that, prior to the vehicle stop, he had not made any observations to indicate that defendant or the other individuals had failed to pay for the merchandise. Additionally, the first deputy observed defendant and the other individuals walking, not running, back to the vehicle after exiting the store, and conceded that it was possible that they had purchased the merchandise during their time in the store … . People v Mcmillon, 2023 NY Slip Op 05064, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here the deputies conceded people do bring bags from other stores into the mall and can use those bags for purchases. Therefore, without more, video surveillance of the defendant entering the mall with empty bags from a “non-mall” store and then leaving with items in the bags did not justify the subsequent vehicle-stop.

 

,

HERE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE WILL WAS IN A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEDENT AND THE WILL WAS PREPARED BY AN ATTORNEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BENEFICIARY; THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OBJECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Surrogate’s Court, determined the objections to probate of the will alleging undue influence should not have been dismissed. Here the will was prepared by an attorney for a beneficiary of the will:

“Generally, [t]he burden of proving undue influence . . . rests with the party asserting its existence . . . . Where, however, there was a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the beneficiary and the decedent, [a]n inference of undue influence arises which requires the beneficiary to come forward with an explanation of the circumstances of the transaction . . . , i.e., to prove the transaction fair and free from undue influence” … . Here, there are questions of fact whether the will’s sole beneficiary and her husband were in confidential relationships with decedent and, if so, whether the will was free from undue influence, which preclude judgment as a matter of law.

Further, where, as here, “a will has been prepared by an attorney associated with a beneficiary, an explanation is called for, and it is a question of fact . . . as to whether the proffered explanation is adequate” … . Matter of Cher, 2023 NY Slip Op 05062, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here issues of fact re: undue influence were raised by the beneficiary’s confidential relationship with the decedent and by association between the beneficiary and the attorney who drafted the will.

 

, ,

RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHETHER THE REGULATION REQUIRING HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, FLATLY STATING THE PANDEMIC IS OVER AND IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the appeal of Supreme Court’s ruling that the regulation requiring hospitals to mandate COVID vaccines for certain personnel exceeded the state’s authority has been rendered moot. The state has repealed the regulation. The exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply:

“[A]lthough the issue of the lawfulness of the [regulation] implemented as part of the extraordinary response to the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial and novel, that issue is not likely to recur” given the once-in-a-century nature of the pandemic and the emergency governmental response thereto … . Moreover, “the issue is not of the type that typically evades review” … . Indeed, the regulation at issue here received significant review from numerous state and federal courts … . In any event, under the circumstances of this case, we would “decline to invoke the mootness exception” … . Matter of Medical Professionals for Informed Consent, Individually & On Behalf of Its Members, Kristen Robillard, M.D., Zarina Hernandez-schipplick, M.D., Margaret Florini, A.S.C.P., Olyesya Girich, Rt (r), & Elizabeth Storelli, R.N., Individually & On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v Bassett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05052, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Health care workers lost their jobs if they refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 based upon the regulation at issue here. At this writing, the COVID booster campaign continues unabated for everyone over six months of age. Yet the Fourth Department refused to consider whether the regulation was valid and enforceable, instead declaring the pandemic over and unlikely to occur again.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING RESPONDENT COMMITTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the family offense of harassment second degree:

“A petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed a family offense” … . To establish that respondent committed acts constituting harassment in the second degree, petitioner was required to establish that respondent engaged in conduct that was intended to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner, that petitioner was alarmed or seriously annoyed by the conduct, and that the conduct served no legitimate purpose (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]). Here, the evidence presented by petitioner at the hearing consisted primarily of petitioner’s testimony that respondent posted “negative posts and stuff” on social media about him including, in particular, two posts on Facebook about an unnamed “ex” that he believed referred to him, after which respondent blocked him from viewing her posts. We conclude under the circumstances of this case that the evidence presented by petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent engaged in acts constituting harassment in the second degree … . Matter of Geremski v Berardi, 2023 NY Slip Op 04883, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the finding respondent committed the family offense of harassment second degree was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

 

, , ,

MOTHER WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER; MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED BUT DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE; ALTHOUGH AN ORDER ENTERED UPON DEFAULT CANNOT BE APPEALED, CONTESTED MATTERS DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT, HERE WHETHER MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CAN BE CONSIDERED UPON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined Family Court properly found that mother had defaulted in this custody case, despite the appearance of her attorney, who declined to participate. The Fourth Department noted that, although orders issued pursuant to a default are not appealable, contested issues addressed by the court prior to the order can be appealed:

The court, concluding that the mother had adequate warning that she needed to appear visually at the hearing and ample time to ensure that she could so appear, denied the request for an adjournment and determined that it would proceed by inquest. Inasmuch as the mother’s attorney, although present, thereafter declined to participate in the inquest in the mother’s absence and instead elected to stand mute, we conclude that the court properly determined that the mother’s failure to appear in the manner required constituted a default … .

“[N]otwithstanding the prohibition set forth in CPLR 5511 against an appeal from an order or judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party, the appeal from [such an] order [or judgment] brings up for review those ‘matters which were the subject of contest’ before the [trial court]” … . Thus, in this appeal, review is limited to the mother’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request for an adjournment … . We reject that contention. Matter of Reardon v Krause, 2023 NY Slip Op 04880, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here mother did not appear in the custody case and her attorney appeared but declined to participate. Therefore Family Court properly found mother to be in default.

Practice Point: Although an order entered upon default is not appealable, an appeal from such an order brings up contested matters decided prior to the order. Here the appellate court considered the denial of mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment.

 

, ,

EQUIVOCAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DRUG ABUSE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 15-POINT DRUG-ABUSE ASSESSMENT UNDER SORA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined 15 points should not have been assessed against the defendant under SORA for drug abuse. The evidence was too weak:

Here, we conclude that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of substance abuse. Although the case summary presented by the People at the SORA hearing establishes that defendant was convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) of possessing an unknown amount of testosterone and using an anabolic steroid … , which offense occurred nearly one year after the underlying sex offense of sexual abuse of a child … , there is “no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues” and ” ‘only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug . . . abuse’ ” … . Indeed, the sole information in the record regarding defendant’s purported history of drug abuse is the “conclusory hearsay” statement … of a correctional treatment specialist—here, a licensed marriage and family therapist—who commented in the updated treatment assessment he prepared prior to defendant’s release from incarceration that defendant had “substance abuse problems with steroids pre-confinement” but that confinement had “cleaned . . . up” that problem such that defendant now understood “the repercussions of that type of abuse.” Inasmuch as the only evidence that defendant abused steroids consists of a ” ‘hearsay statement[] that [is] vague, . . . equivocal, and otherwise unsubstantiated,’ ” the People failed to establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of substance abuse … . People v Currington, 2023 NY Slip Op 04874, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the evidence purporting to demonstrate defendant had a history of drug abuse was deemed too weak to support the 15-point drug-abuse assessment under SORA.

 

, ,

THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE STEMMING FROM THE OFFICER’S INJURY MUST SHARE THE $100,000 “PER PERSON” INSURANCE-POLICY LIMIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police officer injured in a car accident and the city suing for payments made for the officer’s salary and medical expenses had to share the $100,000 “per person”  policy-limit in the Safeco insurance policy:

… [T]here is a $100,000 policy limit for “each person” sustaining bodily injury. The policy provides that the limit of bodily injury liability for “each person” is the “maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss of services or death, resulting from any one auto accident” for bodily injury not resulting in death of “any one person” (emphasis added). The City here asserted a claim against the tortfeasors pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c (6), which creates a cause of action for municipalities for reimbursement of “such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the police officer shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.” The municipality’s right to recover “is derived from its insured employee’s cause of action in negligence against the person causing such injury,” and the “right to bring the direct action is bottomed on the employee’s cause of action in negligence” … . … [T]he City’s statutory claim and plaintiff’s claim both result from the injuries sustained by plaintiff and are both included in the same $100,000 per person limit of liability in the policy … . Lewczyk v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2023 NY Slip Op 04867, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here, pursuant to the unambiguous terms of the insurance policy, the police officer injured in a traffic accident and the city seeking recovery of the related salary and medical-expense payments must share the $100,000 “per person” insurance-policy limit.

 

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