You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM PERSONNEL WERE UNAWARE PLAINTIFF HAD EXECUTED A “MOLST” DECLINING LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT WHEN THEY PERFORMED CHEST COMPRESSIONS WHICH REVIVED PLAINTIFF BUT FRACTURED RIBS; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ANOTHER HEART ATTACK SEVEN HOURS LATER AND DIED; A JURY AWARDED DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD OF CARE OR A VIOLATION OF A STANDARD OF CARE; THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant hospital’s motion for a directed verdict in this med mal case, determined the plaintiff’s expert did not establish the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof. Plaintiff had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) declining life-saving measures. Hospital personnel were not aware of the MOLST when plaintiff presented in the emergency room. When plaintiff became unresponsive, chest compressions were performed. Plaintiff was revived but he had suffered rib fractures. The plaintiff suffered a second heart attack and died seven hours later. The jury awarded damages for pain and suffering:

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion for a directed verdict. “[V]iewing the evidence in [the] light most favorable to [plaintiff] and affording [plaintiff] the benefit of every inference,” we conclude that there was “no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of” plaintiff inasmuch as there was no expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof … . At trial, plaintiff’s expert described how a hospital could communicate a patient’s MOLST in order to ensure that it was honored, what hospitals were “allowed” to do, what he would “expect,” what “should” happen, and what “option[s]” were available, but he did not state what an accepted standard of care required. Further, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s expert articulated a standard of care, we conclude that he failed to opine that any such standard was violated under the specific circumstances of this case … . Cianci v University of Rochester, 2025 NY Slip Op 06492, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of vague expert testimony in a med mal case which failed to articulate a standard of care or a breach thereof.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE FOR FINDING NEGLECT ON A GROUND NOT ALLEGED IN THE PETITION; TO DO SO, THE JUDGE MUST AMEND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AND GIVE THE RESPONDENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED ALLEGATIONS; NEITHER WAS DONE; PETITION DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, dismissing the neglect petition, determined Family Court did not follow the required procedure for finding neglect on a ground which was not alleged in the petition. The court may amend the allegations in the petition to conform to the proof, provided the respondent is given a reasonable time to respond to the amended allegations. Here the court did not amend the allegations or give mother time to respond:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (b), “[i]f the proof does not conform to the specific allegations of the petition, the court may amend the allegations to conform to the proof; provided, however, that in such case the respondent shall be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations.” Here, the basis for the court’s finding of neglect pursuant to section 1012 (f) (i) (B) was not alleged in the petition, and the court did not amend the allegations to conform to the proof or give the mother notice or an opportunity to respond to any such implied amendment … . As the mother contends, had she known that the court was considering a theory of neglect based solely on her post-disclosure conduct, she would have prepared a defense to that theory. We therefore conclude that the court’s finding of neglect on that ground was improper … , and the petition must be dismissed … . Matter of Mariah W. (Amber N.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06487, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: To find neglect on a ground not alleged in the petition, the judge must conform the allegations in the petition to the proof and give the respondent time to respond to the amended allegations. Here the failure to follow that procedure resulted in dismissal of the petition.

 

, ,

CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED PARENTAL NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE CHILDREN FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT AND FAILURE TO ENSURE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence supported finding the parents neglected the children by failing to provide medical and dental care and failing to ensure school attendance:

A neglected child is defined, in relevant part, as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [their] parent or other person legally responsible for [their] care to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate . . . education . . . , or medical[ or] dental . . . care, though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). “The statute thus imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . . First, there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child . . . Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances” … .

… [T]he evidence of respondents’ ” ‘failure to follow through with necessary treatment for [Rocky M.’s] serious medical condition support[s] [a] finding of medical neglect” against them … . …[R]espondents’ failure to take Jemma M. to medical appointments for most of the first year of her life, particularly in light of her prematurity, condition and weight at birth, and subsequent developmental delays, caused impairment of her physical and emotional condition sufficient to support a finding of medical neglect with respect to her … . … [T]he evidence … , including medical records, establishes that respondents were financially able or had other reasonable means to provide adequate medical care … . The evidence further establishes that respondents neglected Cynthia M., Gwen M., Emmitt C. and Rocky M. by failing to provide adequate dental care … . … [P]etitioner presented unrebutted evidence of excessive school absences for Cynthia M., Gwen M., James M., and Emmitt C., which is sufficient to establish respondents’ educational neglect of those children … . Finally, we conclude that the evidence of neglect with respect to the aforementioned children “demonstrates such an impaired level of . . . judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [respondents’] care,” thus warranting a finding of derivative neglect with respect to Nova M. and Trenton M. Matter of Cynthia M., 2025 NY Slip Op 05621, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: The parents’ failure to provide the children with medical and dental care, and the failure to ensure school attendance warranted neglect and derivative neglect findings with respect to all the children, criteria explained.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUGHT HER HEEL AND CAUSED HER TO FALL, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT A MIS-LEVELED CONCRETE SLAB CAUSED THE FALL COULD ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE WITHOUT RESORT TO SPECULATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been denied. Plaintiff testified “something caught her heel” when she was walking backwards from a gravel driveway to the garage and she fell onto concrete in the garage. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, but the circumstantial evidence indicated her heel caught on the mis-leveled concrete slab:

​… [W]e conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the cause of plaintiff’s fall was speculative … . ” ‘Although [mere] conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value . . . , a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff[ ] show[s] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant[ ] and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred’ ” … .

Although plaintiff testified that she did not know what caught her heel and caused the fall, she also stated that she fell in the immediate vicinity of the entry to the garage from the gravel driveway and landed inside the garage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , we conclude that the testimony and the allegations in the bill of particulars regarding the mis-leveled concrete slab “render[ed] any other potential cause of her fall ‘sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” … . Withers v Roblee, 2025 NY Slip Op 05620, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff could not say precisely what “caught her heel” and caused her to fall, but the circumstantial evidence was such that a jury could determine the cause without resort to speculation. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT SAID “HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT …” AND THE POLICE STOPPED QUESTIONING HIM; AN HOUR AN A HALF LATER THE POLICE RESUMED QUESTIONING WITHOUT RE-READING THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to remain silent should have suppressed. The questioning stopped after defendant said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. The questioning resumed an hour and a half later without a re-reading of defendant’s Miranda rights:

… [A]fter the police told defendant that they considered him a suspect in the underlying shooting and asked him “for his side of the story,” defendant continually stated that “he didn’t want to talk about that and [that] he’d rather take his chances.” We conclude that defendant thereby unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent … inasmuch as “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . Indeed, the actions of the police in response to defendant’s statement demonstrated that they understood his statement to be an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent—i.e., they promptly ceased their questioning of defendant and left the interrogation room for a prolonged period of time … . Defendant’s responses to a police officer when the officer resumed the interrogation—which occurred about an hour and a half after the prior questioning ceased—did not negate defendant’s prior unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent because the police officer failed to reread the Miranda warnings to defendant before resuming the interrogation and therefore failed to scrupulously honor his right to remain silent … . People v Surles, 2025 NY Slip Op 05603, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here the police stopped questioning defendant when he said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. An hour and half later the police resumed questioning without re-reading the Miranda rights. Those statement should have been suppressed.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the SORA risk level determination, held that the judge violated defendant’s right to due process of law by assessing points that were not requested by the People, and violated the Correction Law requirements for imposing an upward departure:

Although defendant failed to object to the assessment of points … when the court rendered its oral decision, we “review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice in light of the substantial infringement upon [her] due process and statutory rights” … .

… [T]he court failed to comply with the requirement of Correction Law § 168-n (3) that it set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its decision to grant the People’s request for an upward departure … . In its decision, the court merely concluded, under the first part of the relevant three-part analysis, that the People had identified “aggravating . . . circumstances . . . of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . At no time in its decision did the court render a determination on the other two parts of the relevant analysis. Rather, after identifying the aggravating circumstances, the court conclusorily granted the People’s application for an upward departure, without ever “weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Ridley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05599, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: If a judge assesses SORA risk-level points not requested by the People, the defendant’s due process rights are violated.

Practice Point: In granting an upward departure in a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding, the judge must make the findings required by the Correction Law.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING A POLICE OFFICER TO COURT TO TESTIFY AT A PRETRIAL HEARING; THE 33-DAY DELAY WAS UNREASONABLE AND CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s speedy trial motion should have been granted and the indictment was dismissed. A 33-day delay in having a police officer come to court to testify at a pretrial hearing was deemed unreasonable and chargeable to the People:

The People announced readiness in July 2021 and, subsequently, a combined Huntley and Mapp hearing was held on December 8, 2021. After two officers from the Rochester Police Department testified at that hearing, the prosecutor stated that a third officer was “currently not allowed to come to court due to an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s Office.” The prosecutor said that he was unsure of “who” was telling the officer “not to come to court.” The court thus adjourned the hearing and, ultimately, the officer testified on January 10, 2022, i.e., 33 days later.

… The People failed to establish that they exercised due diligence, i.e. ” ‘credible, vigorous activity’ to make the witness available” … . People v Beason, 2025 NY Slip Op 05598, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here a 33-day unexplained delay in bringing a police officer to court to testify at a pretrial hearing was deemed unreasonable and chargeable to the People.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER IN THE 70’S, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH SUPPORTED THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent hiring and retention causes of action against the school district, based on allegations of sexual abuse of plaintiff by a music teacher in the 70’s, should not have been dismissed. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendants included the observed behavior of the music teacher by another teacher, the dismissal of the music teacher from other schools, the conflicting information about arrests in the teacher’s employment applications, the suspicions of other teachers and the failure to report those suspicions:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that on two occasions the music teacher entered the boys’ locker room while plaintiff and his classmates were changing and that on each occasion the gym teacher instructed the music teacher to leave. Although the gym teacher denied observing the music teacher in the boys’ locker room during his deposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit that the gym teacher executed in an unrelated case wherein he averred that he had “heard rumors from many students” that the music teacher had a sexual interest in the male students at the school and that he was “suspicious that [the music teacher] may have had inappropriate relationships with students.” The affidavit reflects that the gym teacher was “vigilant” and “kept an eye on” the music teacher—meeting weekly with another coach to “see if the other had witnessed any inappropriate behavior” by the music teacher—but nonetheless permitted the music teacher to transport students to and from games and swim meets.

* * * [[P]laintiff submitted the music teacher’s testimony, wherein he testified that he had “always” had students visit him at his home and that other teachers were aware that students would visit him at his home, where the abuse of plaintiff is, in part, alleged to have occurred … . …

Plaintiff also submitted an expert affidavit asserting that defendants failed to appropriately train and supervise other teachers and staff to report their knowledge of inappropriate behavior. * * *

… [D]efendants submitted the music teacher’s employment applications, wherein he submitted contradictory responses about whether he had been arrested; a reference from the principal of a junior high school where the music teacher had taught, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and “had a tendency to more or less pal with his seventh grade male students”; and a reference completed by a school counselor employed by a different district, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and that she would not employ him as a teacher in her school system. Harper v Buffalo City Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05595, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of the proof which will raise questions of fact in a Child Victims Act case against a school district alleging negligent supervision, training, hiring and retention.

 

,

THE INSTALLATION OF MOTION-ACTIVATED SECURITY LIGHTS WHICH SHINE INTO A NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY CAN CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the nuisance cause of action, based upon defendants’ installation of flood lights, should not have been dismissed:

“To establish a claim of private nuisance, a plaintiff must show: ‘an interference (1) substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with [the plaintiff’s] property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act’ ” … . The interference “must not be fanciful, slight or theoretical, but certain and substantial, and must interfere with the physical comfort of the ordinarily reasonable person” … .

… [T]he amended complaint alleged that a nuisance arose from, among other things, flood lights in defendants’ backyard that shined light onto plaintiff’s property at night. According to plaintiff, the lights constituted a “substantial, intentional and unreasonable interference” with his property rights. In support of that part of their motion seeking summary judgment, defendants acknowledged that they installed motion-activated security lights in their backyard but contended in a conclusory fashion that the lights do not “amount to nuisance to a reasonable person.” Defendants did not identify where on their property the lights are stationed, nor did they dispute that they shined light onto plaintiff’s property. Thus, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the lights did not constitute a nuisance. Marrano v Dusza, 2025 NY Slip Op 05592, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Lights which shine into a neighbor’s property can constitute a private nuisance.

 

, ,

THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT TO PENAL LAW 265.09 (2) DID NOT APPLY TO FIVE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; THE APPEAL OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined several of the additional consecutive five-year sentences pursuant to Penal Law 265.09( 2) were illegal. The court noted that preservation is not required for the appeal of an illegal sentence:

… [Penal Law 265.09(2)] provides in relevant part that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, when a person is convicted of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree as defined in [Penal Law § 265.09 (1)], the court shall impose an additional consecutive sentence of five years to the sentence imposed on the underlying class B violent felony offense where the person convicted of such crime displays a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious injury may be discharged, in furtherance of the commission of such crime” … . …

… [T]he sentence enhancement provision does not apply to his conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 2… and robbery in the first degree under count 5 … . Given that the use or display of a firearm is an element of each of those crimes and “the use or display of that same firearm cannot also be the predicate for criminal [use] of a firearm in the first degree” … , neither of those crimes may serve as “the underlying class B violent felony offense” upon which the court could impose an additional consecutive sentence of five years … .

… [T]he sentence enhancement provision does not apply to his conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 3… . * * * Defendant’s conviction under Penal Law § 265.09 (1) (a) “did not involve the display of a loaded, operable weapon” … , and the victim—the only person other than defendant who was present in the room where the shooting occurred—had no recollection of defendant’s entry into the apartment or of the events that transpired during the shooting that caused his physical injuries … . People v Clea, 2025 NY Slip Op 05590, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when the five-year consecutive-sentence enhancement for display of a fireman is not allowed by Penal Law 265.09 (2).

 

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