You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

THE SEARCH OF THE UNCONSCIOUS OR SLEEPING DEFENDANT’S POCKETS WAS NOT A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST OR A SEARCH PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE SEIZED COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the drug-possession indictment, determined the police officer’s search of defendant’s pocket while he was unconscious was not a valid search incident to arrest a was not justified under the Mental Hygiene Law. The police entered the apartment with the tenant’s permission to search for a person for whom they had an arrest warrant. The tenant told the police the defendant had the same first name as the name on the warrant but that defendant was not the person they were looking for. Defendant was sitting at the kitchen table either unconscious or asleep. When the police officer couldn’t wake the defendant up, the officer searched his pockets and found cocaine:

The officers called an ambulance for defendant, but when the ambulance arrived, the medical personnel were able to wake defendant and determined that he did not need medical care. During his testimony at the suppression hearing, the officer asserted that Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 permitted him to search defendant inasmuch as he was planning to call an ambulance to transport defendant. The suppression court determined that the officer’s search of defendant’s person was justified by Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 and that the search was analogous to a search incident to arrest.

… The People correctly concede that the officer did not believe that defendant had committed a crime before he searched defendant’s pockets, and thus the search was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest … . … [W]e cannot conclude that the police officer was acting pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 because, contrary to the People’s assertion, there was insufficient evidence that defendant was in danger of harming himself or others … . People v Ruise, 2025 NY Slip Op 05589, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: For a warrantless search of a person to be justified under the Mental Hygiene Law there must be evidence the defendant is in danger of harming himself or others.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A DEFECTIVELY MAINTAINED AND/OR INSTALLED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALLOWED A SIGNAL HEAD IN EACH DIRECTION TO SHOW A GREEN LIGHT, THEREBY CAUSING THE INTERSECTION COLLISION; ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THE PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE “FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE INTERSECTION IN A SAFE CONDITION” AND “CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION” CAUSES OF ACTION, AND THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, determined the complaint and bill of particulars sufficiently alleged negligence and questions of fact were raised about whether the county failed to properly maintain a traffic signal and created a dangerous condition. The plaintiff alleged a pipe holding the traffic signal broke allowing it to rotate 90 degrees such that at least one of the signal heads in each direction showed a green light, causing the intersection collision. The fact that the county demonstrated it did not have notice of the defective traffic signal did not affect the viability of the “failure to maintain the intersection in a safe condition” and the “creation of a dangerous condition” causes of action:

“A municipality has a duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition” … . “[T]he municipality breaches such duty if it permits a dangerous or potentially dangerous condition to exist and cause injury” … . Here, to meet its burden on that part of the motion seeking summary judgment, defendant was required to “demonstrate that it maintained the intersection in a reasonably safe condition and that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of same” … .

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavit of his expert … . We also agree with plaintiff that questions of fact exist with respect to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here … . Duncan v Town of Greece, 2025 NY Slip Op 05588, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: The municipality’s lack of notice of a dangerous condition, here an allegedly defective traffic signal, does not affect the viability of causes of action alleging the failure to maintain the intersection in a safe condition and/or the municipality’s creation of the dangerous condition.​

 

,

ENGAGING IN COUNSELING SHOULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF VISITATION; THE COURT SHOULD NOT DELEGATE ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF AND WHEN VISITATION SHOULD OCCUR TO A COUNSELOR (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, modifying Family Court, determined father should not have been directed to engage in counseling as a condition of visitation Family Court shouild not have delegated its authority to the counselor to determine when visitation should resume:

It is well settled that ” ‘[a]lthough a court may include a directive to obtain counseling as a component of a custody or visitation order, the court does not have the authority to order such counseling as a prerequisite to custody or visitation’ ” … . In addition, a court may not give counselors “the authority to determine if and when visitation would occur” … . Matter of Johnson v Pritchard, 2025 NY Slip Op 05398, Fourth Dept 10-3-25

Practice Point: Engaging in counseling should not be a condition of visitation.

Practice Point: Family Court should not delegate its authority to decide if and when visitation should occur to a counselor.

 

, ,

WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH WORK IS PERFORMED, A GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE STEMS FROM THE EXERCISE OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; INFORMING THE WORKER OF WHAT WORK SHOULD BE DONE, MONITORING THE TIME AND QUALITY OF THE WORK, ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY REGULATIONS, AND HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK FOR SAFETY REASONS, DO NOT AMOUNT TO THE EXERCISE OF “SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant general contractor’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should have been granted because defendant did not exercise supervisory authority over plaintiff’s work. The Fourth Department took pains to describe what does not constitute the exercise of supervisory authority:

… [T]he court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to the portions of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action alleging negligence in the manner in which work was performed. It is well settled that ” ‘[w]here the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the [defendant] exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the [defendant] under the common law or under Labor Law § 200’ ” … .

Here, defendant established as a matter of law that it ” ‘did not actually direct or control’ ” the work [plaintiff was hired to do.] Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, ” ‘[t]here is no direction or control if the [general contractor merely] informs the worker what work should be performed . . . [;] there is direction and control [only where the general contractor] specifies how that work should be performed’ ” … . “Similarly, ‘a general duty to ensure compliance with safety regulations or the authority to stop work for safety reasons’ ” … , or even the ” ‘monitoring and oversight of the timing and quality of the work’ ” … are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant exercised direction and control over the manner of plaintiff’s work. Szlapak v The L.C. Whitford, Co., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05385, Fourth Dept 10-3-25

Practice Point: Informing a worker of what work is to be done, monitoring the time and quality of the work, ensuring compliance with safety regulations, having the authority to stop work for safety reasons, do not constitute the “the exercise of supervisory authority” such that a general contractor can be liable under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence for the manner in which the work was done.

 

,

PETITIONER’S SISTER ACTED AS AGENT FOR THEIR DECEASED MOTHER; PETITIONER’S STANDING TO SEEK AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PRINCIPAL’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that petitioner had standing to seek an order pursuant to General Obligations Law 5-1510 directing the respondent, petitioner’s sister, to provide a copy of all bank statements, receipts, disbursements and transactions entered into by the respondent while acting as agent for the parties’ deceased mother. Contrary to the Surrogate’s ruling, the death of the parties’ mother did not deprive petitioner of standing to seek an accounting:

… [T]he death of decedent did not divest petitioner of standing pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-1510 (3) to commence this special proceeding. Section 5-1510 (3) identifies, both directly and by reference to section 5-1505 (2) (a) (3), the parties that have standing to seek judicial intervention for the purpose of, among other things, compelling an accounting of all receipts, disbursements and transactions entered into by an agent on behalf of the principal … . Specifically, it provides that “[a] special proceeding may be commenced pursuant to [section 5-1510 (2)] by any person identified in [section 5-1505 (2) (a) (3)]”—which includes a personal representative of the estate of a deceased principal—as well as “the agent, the spouse, child or parent of the principal, the principal’s successor in interest, or any third party who may be required to accept a power of attorney” … . The legislature’s use of “any” and the disjunctive “or” in that statutory language evinces its intent to provide a list of equal but alternative petitioners … . Lange v Dixson, 2025 NY Slip Op 05352, Fourth Dept 10-3-25

Practice Point: Here petitioner’s sister acted as agent for their deceased mother. The death of the principal (the parties’ mother) did not affect petitioner’s standing to seek an accounting pursuant to the General Obligations Law.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THEREFORE THE JUDGE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT’S REQUEST WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined he did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

… [D]efendant did not unequivocally request to proceed pro se inasmuch as he only “ask[ed] to proceed pro se as an alternative to receiving new counsel,” thereby seeking to “leverage his right of self-representation in an attempt to compel the court to appoint another lawyer” … . Indeed, defendant repeatedly “made clear that he did not wish to proceed pro se,” and “couched [his requests] as a means to secure new counsel” … , including by stating that he had “no choice” but to represent himself if the court did not assign new counsel, and that he “d[id]n’t want to represent [him]self” but would do so if the court refused to appoint another attorney … . Defendant made no “standalone request to proceed pro se” … ; rather, all of his “requests to proceed pro se were made in the alternative; he sought to represent himself only because [the court] refused to replace . . . assigned counsel who had displeased him” … . A request to proceed pro se is equivocal where, as here, “it ‘does not reflect an affirmative desire for self-representation’ and instead shows that ‘self-representation was reserved as a final, conditional resort’ ” … . Inasmuch as defendant’s requests consisted of “equivocal and hesitant statements about proceeding pro se” … , the court’s duty to “make a searching inquiry . . . to determine whether [the] request[s] w[ere] knowing, voluntary, and intelligent” was not triggered … . People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 04300, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a thorough discussion of what makes a defendant’s request to represent himself “unequivocal” (thereby by triggering the need for a searching inquiry by the judge into whether the request is knowing, voluntary and intelligent).

 

, ,

A COURT CANNOT MANDATE A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS EXERCISE FOR A CHILD (ORDERING THAT A CHILD ATTEND A SPECIFIC CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE); RATHER, THE COURT SHOULD DESIGNATE A PARENT TO HAVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER A CHILD’S RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND EXCERCISE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the order that a child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints …” was unconstitutional in that it mandated specific religious exercise:

… [T]he court’s order that the parties’ middle child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints every Sunday” except for six Sundays per year when the mother has access with the child, is unconstitutional insofar as it mandates specific religious exercise … . … [W]e remit the matter to Family Court to designate which parent will have decision-making authority for that child’s religious education and practice. Matter of Clark v Strassburg, 2025 NY Slip Op 04390, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: It is unconstitutional for a court, in the context of a Family Court proceeding, to order that a child attend a particular church. The court should designate a parent to have decision-making authority over a child’s religious education and practice.

 

, , , ,

COUNTY COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY FAILING TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT IT INTENDED TO ASSESS POINTS IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OR PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE; NEW HEARING ORDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk assessment hearing, determined County Court violated defendant’s right to due process of law by failing to notify defendant it intended to assess points that were not recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or proposed by the People. Although the defendant did not object to the assessment, the Fourth Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction and considered the appeal. People v Buckmaster, 2025 NY Slip Op 04378, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Defendants are entitled to notice that the court intends to assess points in a SORA risk-level proceeding that were not recommended by the Board or proposed by the People. Failure to provide notice is a violation of due process.​

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED A TEENAGER WHO COMMITTED RACIALLY-MOTIVATED MASS MURDER WAS ADDICTED TO SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT PRESENTING THE VIEW THAT WHITES ARE BEING REPLACED BY NON-WHITES; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED TO BE ADDICTIVE; OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE DEFENDANT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEEMED IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lindley, over a two-justice dissent, determined the actions against social media platforms alleging the platforms are defectively designed to be “addictive” such that a teenager’s addiction to racist content led him to commit a racially-motivated mass shooting, should have been dismissed:

These consolidated appeals arise from four separate actions commenced in response to the mass shooting on May 14, 2022 at a grocery store in a predominately Black neighborhood in Buffalo. The shooter, a teenager from the Southern Tier of New York, spent months planning the attack and was motivated by the Great Replacement Theory, which posits that white populations in Western countries are being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants and people of color. After driving more than 200 miles from his home to Buffalo, the shooter arrived at the store and opened fire on Black individuals in the parking lot and inside the store with a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic rifle, killing 10 people and wounding three others. * * *

The social media defendants moved to dismiss the complaints against them for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), contending, inter alia, that they are immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (section 230) (see 47 USC § 230 [c] [1], [2]) and the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. * * *

… [I]t is undisputed that the social media defendants qualify as providers of interactive computer services. The dispositive question is whether plaintiffs seek to hold the social media defendants liable as publishers or speakers of information provided by other content providers. Based on our reading of the complaints, we conclude that plaintiffs seek to hold the social media defendants liable as publishers of third-party content. We further conclude that the content-recommendation algorithms used by some of the social media defendants do not deprive those defendants of their status as publishers of third-party content. It follows that plaintiffs’ tort causes of action against the social media defendants are barred by section 230. Patterson v Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04385, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of whether social medial platforms can be liable for the actions of persons who become addicted to and are motivated to act by third-party social-media content. Here plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued that social media platforms are defectively designed using algorithms which foster addiction.

 

,

CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming the convictions, explained the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. A two-justice partial dissent argued there was insufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt of murder, attempted murder and assault as an accessory:

…[T]he court properly admitted in evidence the text messages sent by the female codefendant to defendant’s cell phone pursuant to the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. ” ‘A declaration by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against another coconspirator as an exception to the hearsay rule’ ” … . Such a declaration may be admitted only where the People have established a prima facie case of conspiracy ” ‘without recourse to the declarations [of that coconspirator]’ ” … . “The prima facie case of conspiracy does not need to be established before the coconspirator’s statements are admitted in evidence, so long as ‘the People independently establish a conspiracy by the close of their case’ ” … . People v Brown, 2025 NY Slip Op 04331, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

 

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