You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY HAD REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IN A MATTER INVOLVING SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY’S SMALL LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s attorney, Laraby, and Laraby’s law firm, must be disqualified in this medical malpractice action. Laraby had represented the defendant in this case in a matter involving substantially similar allegations of malpractice:

The plaintiff in the prior representation, whose baby had suffered from essentially the same injuries as plaintiff’s son here, made many of the same allegations of negligence and malpractice against defendant as plaintiff does in this case. Both cases involved whether defendant properly monitored the patients and the babies and made proper decisions regarding oxytocin administration, and whether defendant made the proper decision to continue with vaginal delivery instead of proceeding with a cesarean section. Alternatively, defendant established that Laraby received specific, confidential information in the prior litigation that is substantially related to the present litigation … . In particular, Laraby had access to the litigation strategy to defend defendant against the allegations of malpractice, including speaking with and receiving reports of expert witnesses. Brandice M.C. v Wilder, 2023 NY Slip Op 05871, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s attorney had represented the defendant in this medical malpractice action in a case where the issues were substantially the same. The motion to disqualify the attorney and the attorney’s small law firm should have been granted.

 

IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING WHICH IS TRIGGERED BY A DEMAND BY PETITIONER, AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN MAKING THE DEMAND WILL RENDER THE PROCEEDING TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding was time-barred because petitioner unreasonably delayed making the demand which triggered the four-month statute of limitations (laches):

“[W]here, as here, the proceeding is in the nature of mandamus to compel, it ‘must be commenced within four months after refusal by respondent, upon demand of petitioner, to perform its duty’ ” … . ” ‘[A] petitioner[, however,] may not delay in making a demand in order to indefinitely postpone the time within which to institute the proceeding. The petitioner must make his or her demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give him or her a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner’s claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches’ ” … . “The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” … . Inasmuch as “[t]he problem . . . is one of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations[,] . . . it is immaterial whether or not the delay cause[s] any prejudice to the respondent” … . “[T]he four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been ‘treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand’ ” … . Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co. III, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05867, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Where a mandamus proceeding is triggered by a demand by petitioner, an unreasonable delay in making the demand will render the proceeding time-barred.

 

,

THE OFFICER WHO CONVINCED DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR A WARRANT BUT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DETAINED UNTIL THE WARRANT WAS PROCURED; BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THE OFFICER’S STATEMENT WAS MISLEADING; DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, suppressing the drugs found in defendant’s car and defendant’s related statements, determined the consent to search was not voluntarily given. The officer told the defendant he would be happy to apply for a warrant but defendant would be detained until the warrant was obtained. However, the officer told the defendant, if he consented to the search he would be allowed to leave, even if contraband were found. The officer did not have probable cause to search the car, so his claim he would be happy to procure a warrant was misleading:

… [T]he record establishes that defendant consented to the search of his vehicle with the understanding that, if he refused, the detective would obtain a warrant and search the vehicle anyway, and that in the meantime the vehicle would be detained at the scene. We note that a suspect’s consent to search that is based on threatened action by the police is deemed voluntary only where there are valid legal grounds for the threatened action … . Further, we agree with defendant that the voluntariness of his consent therefore turns on whether the detective could lawfully have obtained a search warrant, which may be issued “only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur” … .

In our view, the detective did not have probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime or that the vehicle contained contraband when defendant consented to the warrantless search, and, thus, the detective’s threat to obtain a search warrant was hollow and misleading. People v Barner, 2023 NY Slip Op 05839, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: If a defendant’s consent to a search is procured by a misleading statement by a police officer, the defendant’s consent is not voluntarily given.

 

,

THE PETITIONERS (THREE NYS LEGISLATORS AND AN ADVOCACY GROUP) DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS ALLOWING ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the three New York State legislators (the legislator petitioners) and the advocacy group (the organizational petitioner) challenging the Department of Health regulations allowing isolation and quarantine during the COVID pandemic did not have standing to bring the petition. Legislators have standing where there has been a usurpation of power by the challenged regulations, not the case here. Advocacy groups have standing if any of its members suffered an injury not suffered by the public at large, not the case here:

… “[C]ases considering legislator standing generally fall into one of three categories: lost political battles, nullification of votes and usurpation of power” … . … “in limited circumstances, legislators do have . . . standing to sue when conduct unlawfully interferes with or usurps their duties as legislators” … . Nonetheless, to confer legislator standing, the alleged action must have caused “a direct and personal injury [that] is . . . within a legislator’s zone of interest and . . . represents a concrete and particularized harm” … .  * * *

… [T]he organization petitioner failed to “articulate any direct injury to its [members], other than the injury every citizen allegedly suffers by reason of the challenged [action] of the . . . executive branch[ ]” … . … [W]e conclude … that the organization petitioner lacks standing to bring the challenge in its own name inasmuch as it “has failed to allege a personally concrete and demonstrable injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large” … . Matter of Borrello v Hochul, 2023 NY Slip Op 05834, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Essentially, to have standing to challenge a regulation, a legislator and/or an advocacy group must be able to point to a harm separate and apart from harm suffered by other legislators (re: the legislator petitioners) or the public at large (re: the organizational petitioner). Here the legislators and the advocacy group challenging the COVID isolation and quarantine regulations were unable to demonstrate any unique harm.

 

,

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO RELIGIOUS ENTITIES COULD NOT BE RESOLVED ON THE BASIS OF NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW; THEREFORE COURTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ADJUDICATING THE MATTER BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dispute between plaintiff church and defendant, which has some form of supervisory authority over plaintiff church, could not be adjudicated in a court pursuant to the First Amendment:

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs . . . Civil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated without offending the First Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution” … .

We conclude that none of the relief requested by plaintiff in its complaint may be decided by a court based on neutral principles of law … . Instead, resolution of those issues would “necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice” … . United Church of Friendship v New York Dist. of Assemblies of God, 2023 NY Slip Op 05090, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Where the resolution of a dispute between religious entities requires a court to inquire into religious doctrine or practice, the First Amendment prohibits court involvement.

 

, ,

LYING TO AN INVESTIGATOR WHO RECORDS THE LIE IN A REPORT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A “FALSIFYING A BUSINESS RECORD” CHARGE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the People did not present legally sufficient evidence of the “falsifying a business record” charge. The People alleged defendant lied to the sheriff who interviewed him resulting in a false entry in the sheriff’s report. The report itself was not entered into evidence:

… [T]o meet its burden, the prosecution relied on testimony from a county sheriff’s office sergeant that, during the investigation into a shooting incident, he recorded his conversation with defendant in a report and the report became part of the business records for the sheriff’s office. The sergeant as well as additional sheriff’s deputies testified that defendant’s version of events conflicted with the concurrent observations of defendant’s gunshot wound by the members of the sheriff’s office. The People’s theory was that, by lying to the sergeant, defendant caused a false entry in the business records of the sheriff’s office. The trial testimony established, however, that the sergeant’s report was written to record the “condition or activity” of the sheriff’s office’s investigation into the shooting (Penal Law § 175.00 [2]). We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the sergeant’s report contained a false record of that investigation. Indeed, the sergeant testified that the report accurately documented defendant’s responses to the sergeant’s investigatory questions. People v Andrews, 2023 NY Slip Op 05085, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: The Appellate Division can consider an unpreserved “legally insufficient evidence” issue.

Practice Point: Lying to an investigator who records the lie in the investigation report cannot be the basis for a “falsifying a business record” charge.

 

IN ORDER FOR THE ARREST IN CORTLAND COUNTY ON A JEFFERSON COUNTY WARRANT TO BE VALID THE WARRANT MUST BE ENDORSED BY A JUDGE IN CORTLAND COUNTY BEFORE THE ARREST; HERE THE WARRANT WAS ENDORSED AFTER THE ARREST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined law enforcement in Cortland County did not have the authority to stop defendant’s vehicle and “detain” him on a Jefferson County arrest warrant which had not yet been endorsed by a town justice in Cortland County. To constitute a valid arrest, the warrant must have been endorsed in Cortland County before, not after, the arrest:

… [T]he statute provides that an arrest warrant issued by a city court, a town court, or a village court may be executed “[a]nywhere else in the state upon the written endorsement thereon of a local criminal court of the county in which the arrest is to be made” (CPL 120.70 [2] [b] …). As defendant correctly contends, inasmuch as “[t]he use of the future tense . . . indicates that the statute was intended to relate to [the] future act” of an arrest, the plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that the requisite endorsement must be obtained prior to execution of a subject arrest warrant in a non-issuing or non-adjoining county … . People v Burke, 2023 NY Slip Op 05083, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: When the counties are not contiguous, the arrest in one county on a warrant issued in another county will only be valid if the out-of-county warrant is first endorsed by a judge in the county where the arrest is made.

 

,

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.

 

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