You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

A COURT DOES NOT LOSE JURISDICTION OVER SENTENCING A DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 390.30 IF MORE THAN A YEAR ELAPSES BETWEEN CONVICTION AND SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court did not lose jurisdiction to sentence defendant because more than a year elapsed between conviction and sentencing:

CPL 390.30 provides in relevant part that, “[i]n any case where the court determines that a defendant is eligible for a sentence of probation, the court, after consultation with the prosecutor and upon the consent of the defendant, may adjourn the sentencing to a specified date and order that the defendant be placed on interim probation supervision. In no event may the sentencing be adjourned for a period exceeding one year from the date the conviction is entered, except that upon good cause shown, the court may, upon the defendant’s consent, extend the period for an additional one year where the defendant has agreed to and is still participating in a substance abuse treatment program in connection with a . . . drug court” … . … [N]othing in CPL 390.30 (6) (a) states that a failure to sentence a defendant within one year of the date of conviction is a jurisdictional defect or that sentencing after that one-year period is prohibited … . People v Bryant, 2023 NY Slip Op 04857, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: CPL 390.30 does not deprive the sentencing court of jurisdiction if more than a year elapses between conviction and sentencing.

 

,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY A CODEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW THE STATE OF MIND OF THE INVESTIGATORS QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT; THE INVESTIGATORS’ STATE OF MIND WAS NOT RELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined references in a recorded interrogation of defendant to hearsay statements made by a codefendant should not have been admitted to show the state of mind of the investigators. The error was deemed harmless:

” ‘[T]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted’ ” … . In opposing the motion, the People argued, and the court agreed, that the codefendant’s statements were admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of showing the state of mind of the investigators, specifically, that the investigators wanted to get defendant to admit to something … . But there was no reason to show the investigators’ state of mind when they were questioning defendant using the codefendant’s statements; their state of mind was simply not relevant to any issue in the case. People v Coley, 2023 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the state of mind of the investigators questioning defendant was not relevant to any issue in the case. Therefore the investigators’ hearsay references to statements made by a codefendant should not have been admitted in evidence. The error was deemed harmless however.

 

,

THE PROCEDURE SUNY BUFFALO USED TO QUESTION PARTIES AND WITNESSES ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF PETITONER-STUDENT’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (SUBMITTED WRITTEN QUESTIONS) VIOLATED THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX POLICY (LIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION); THE SCHOOL’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE RECORD WAS EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo) (respondent), held that the determination finding petitioner, a former student, violated the prohibition against sexual violence in the student code of conduct was arbitrary and capricious. The determination was annulled and the record expunged:

… [R]espondent departed from its own published rules and guidelines by adjudicating the alleged misconduct under the Code of Conduct rather than its Title IX Grievance Policy (Title IX Policy). Respondent’s Title IX Policy was established pursuant to 34 CFR 106.44 (b) (1), which requires as relevant here that respondent, in response to a formal complaint, follow a grievance process that complies with 34 CFR 106.45 if it seeks to impose disciplinary sanctions against someone accused of “sexual harassment,” a term that encompasses petitioner’s alleged misconduct … . Although respondent was permitted to dismiss the formal Title IX complaint against petitioner after his withdrawal from the university (see id. § 106.45 [b] [3] [ii]), respondent was nevertheless bound to apply the grievance procedure set forth in § 106.45 if it sought to impose a disciplinary sanction for the alleged misconduct … .

… [T]he questioning procedure provided at the Code of Conduct hearing substantially departed from the questioning procedure set forth in the Title IX Policy, and that the departure rendered respondent’s disciplinary determination arbitrary and capricious … . Respondent’s Title IX Policy, which codifies the regulatory requirements in 34 CFR 106.45 (b) (6) (i), entitles “[e]ach party’s advisor [to] conduct live cross-examination of the other party or parties and witnesses . . . in real time.” However, respondent made the disciplinary determination based on its Code of Conduct questioning procedure, which prohibits live cross-examination and instead limits the parties to submitting written questions to hearing officers in advance of the hearing. “Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to ask questions of an accuser or witness is a significant and critical right” … , and inasmuch as the application of the procedure set forth in the Code of Conduct significantly impeded that right as outlined in the Title IX Policy, we conclude that respondent failed to substantially adhere to its own published rules and guidelines. Matter of Doe 1 v State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 2023 NY Slip Op 04838, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: SUNY Buffalo’s Title IX policy required live cross-examination of parties and witnesses in a sexual harassment investigation. The school followed its code of conduct which limits the questioning to written questions submitted to the hearing officers. The Title IX policy should have been followed. The determination was annulled and the record was expunged.

 

,

A 911 CALLER WHO PROVIDES ONLY HIS FIRST NAME IS AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT AND PROVIDES THE POLICE WITH ONLY THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT TO INQUIRE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of suppression and dismissing the indictment, determined the 911 call was from an anonymous informant, even though the caller provided his first name. Because the informant was anonymous, the information about a black man in an orange jacket carrying a handgun gave rise only to the common-law right to inquire. One of the officer’s approached with his gun drawn and the defendant ran, discarding the jacket and handgun:

As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the 911 caller, who identified himself only by a first name, was anonymous inasmuch as he provided no other information from which the police could identify or locate him , and he was not present at the scene when the police arrived  Indeed, it is not clear from the record that the name by which the caller identified himself was the caller’s real first name. Under the circumstances, we analyze the propriety of the police conduct under the law applicable to tips from anonymous informants. * * *

… [T]he anonymous tip was simply that of a man with a gun at a particular location. It follows that the officer’s gunpoint stop of defendant was unlawful, as was the officers’ subsequent pursuit of defendant after he took flight. People v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 04493, Fourth Dept 9-8-23

Practice Point: A 911 caller who only provides his first name is an anonymous informant. Any information provided by the caller triggers only a police officer’s common-law right to inquire. Here the officer approached with his gun drawn. The gun discarded when the defendant ran should have been suppressed.

 

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the work plaintiff was doing was not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6). Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04285, Fourth Dept 8-11-23. The Fourth Department concluded plaintiff’s work was routine maintenance, not cleaning covered by Labor Law 240(10, and was not done in connection with construction or renovation work. In a separate decision which incorporated the first, two justices disagreed in a dissent, finding that plaintiff’s work was “cleaning” covered by Labor Law 240(1) and was part of construction or renovation work. The dissent lays out in some detail the proof requirements for “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1). Apparently plaintiff was on a ladder cleaning electrical equipment when he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder. Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04286, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The dissent includes a detailed explanation of what constitutes “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

, ,

THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ABSENT A FULL BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have dismissed the grandparents’ petition for visitation before holding a best interests of the child hearing:

… [T]he court erred in granting respondents’ motion and in terminating the hearing before petitioners had completed the presentation of their case … . “[E]ven where . . . a grandparent has established standing to seek visitation, ‘a grandparent must then establish that visitation is in the best interests of the grandchild . . . Among the factors to be considered are whether the grandparent and grandchild have a preexisting relationship, whether the grandparent supports or undermines the grandchild’s relationship with his or her parents, and whether there is any animosity between the parents and the grandparent’ ” … . Visitation and “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry’ ” … , “[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[‘s] best interests” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that, “[a]bsent a[ full] evidentiary hearing, . . . the court here lacked sufficient evidence . . . to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children]’s best interests” … . We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion, reinstate the petitions, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a full evidentiary hearing on the petitions. DeMarco v Severance, 2023 NY Slip Op 04284, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The grandparents’ petition for visitation should not have been dismissed absent a full best interests of the child hearing.

 

, ,

THE CHILD HAD LIVED WITH HIS GRANDPARENTS FOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE; THE GRANDPARENTS DEMONSTRATED EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING A BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HEARING PRIOR TO RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the grandparents established extraordinary circumstances necessitating a best interests hearing before a ruling on mother’s request for a modification of custody. Mother sought to regain custody of the child who was eight years old and had resided with the grandparents for his entire life:

It is undisputed that the child, who was eight years old at the time of the hearing, had lived with the grandparents for his entire life in the only home he has ever known; the child expressed a strong desire to continue residing with his grandparents and the AFC adheres to that position on appeal; the mother and the father both suffered from severe substance abuse problems for years and were unable to care for the child on their own; the mother failed to contact the child for a period of 18 months before resuming visitation in January 2018; the child’s half-sister also resided with the grandparents and the child developed a sibling relationship with her; and “the grand[parents] ha[ve] taken care of the child for most of his life and provided him with stability” …  Additionally, according to the AFC, the child had “developed a strong emotional bond with the grand[parents]” … .

… [W]e conclude that, “even if the prolonged separation alone is entitled to little significance here, the combination of that factor along with others present on this record sufficiently establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances” … , and that the court’s contrary determination is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.

… [W]e remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing to determine whether the modifications of the prior order sought by the mother are in the best interests of the child … . Matter of Tuttle v Worthington, 2023 NY Slip Op 04282, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The child’s grandparents made a showing of extraordinary circumstances requiring a best interests of the child hearing before ruling on mother’s petition for a modification of custody. The child, eight years old, had lived his entire life with his grandparents.

 

THE OWNER OF LAND HAS AN ABSOLUTE PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE SURFACE WATERS COLLECTED ON THAT LAND AND CAN DIVERT IT BEFORE IT FLOWS INTO A DEFINITE WATER COURSE (A STREAM, FOR EXAMPLE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in this dispute over water rights, noted that the Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA) owned surface water on its land and could divert it before it entered a definite water course:

… [W]e agree with MCWA that the court erred in determining that plaintiffs ( a golf course) have riparian rights to the surface waters collecting on MCWA’s property. “The owners of land on a water-course, are not owners of the water which flows in it” … , and “the law has always recognized a wide distinction, between the right of an owner, to deal with surface water falling or collecting on [its] land, and [an owner’s] right in the water of a natural water-course” … . “In such [surface] water, before it leaves [the owner’s] land and becomes part of a definite water-course, the owner of the land is deemed to have an absolute property, and [the owner] may appropriate it to [its] exclusive use, or get rid of it in any way [it] can, provided only that [the owner] does not cast it by drains, or ditches, upon the land of [its] neighbor; and [the owner] may do this, although by so doing [it] prevents the water reaching a natural water-course, as it formerly did, thereby occasioning injury to . . . other proprietors on the stream” … . Webster Golf Club, Inc. v Monroe County Water Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04280, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: A property owner owns the surface water collected on the property and can divert the surface water before it reaches a definite water course like a stream or river.

 

, , , ,

THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES IS APPEALABLE; DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TO NON-PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from asserting the negligence of non-parties (CPLR article 16 defenses) as an affirmative defenses. The court noted that, although the a ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable, a ruling on a motion which seeks to limit the legal theories which can be asserted is appealable:

“Generally, an order ruling [on a motion in limine], even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . There is, however, “a distinction between an order that ‘limits the admissibility of evidence,’ which is not appealable . . . , and one that ‘limits the legal theories of liability to be tried’ or the scope of the issues at trial, which is appealable” … . * * *

… [D]efendants are entitled to assert their CPLR article 16 defenses regarding the nonparty providers. “As provided in CPLR 1601 (1), a defendant may raise the CPLR article 16 defense regarding a nonparty tortfeasor, provided that the plaintiff could obtain jurisdiction over that party” … . Here, defendants are entitled to raise their pleaded affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR article 16 … because plaintiff could have sought to maintain an action against the nonparty providers in Supreme Court … .

The crux of the issue on appeal is whether defendants were required, in response to plaintiff’s demands for bills of particulars, to particularize the pleaded CPLR article 16 defense, and thus whether the court properly precluded them from asserting that defense at trial when they did not timely particularize that defense. We conclude that no such particularization was required under the circumstances of this case, and thus that the court erred in precluding defendants from asserting the CPLR article 16 defense at trial. Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04273, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: Motions in limine generally are not appealable. But motions seeking to preclude legal theories of liability are appealable.

Practice Point: Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from presenting CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses on the ground the defenses were not particularized in the bill of particulars. It was not clear the demands related to the CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses.

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT MEET THE PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT, THE EVIDENCE GLEANED FROM THE CELL PHONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED; KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, THE COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

he Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was overly broad. Therefore the evidence derived from the cell phone should have been suppressed. The court noted that kidnapping in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony … and that the court upon retrial should submit to the jury the kidnapping in the second degree count in the alternative only:

A warrant must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” … . To meet the particularity requirement, a warrant must (1) “identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause,” (2) “describe the place to be searched,” and (3) “specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes” … . Here, the search warrant simply stated that the police were directed to search defendant’s cellular phone for “digital and/or electronic evidence from August 13, 2016 to August 15, 2016.” The warrant contained no language incorporating any other documents or facts. Significantly, the search of the phone was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement and left discretion of the search to the executing officers … . People v Saeli, 2023 NY Slip Op 04268, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: A search warrant for a cell phone which simply states to search for “digital and/or electronic evidence from August 13, 2016 to August 15, 2016” does not meet the particularity requirement (the warrant is overly broad).

Practice Point: Kidnapping in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.

 

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