You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUMMARILY MAKE A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING AND TERMINATE RESPONDENTS’ PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON A PRIOR ABUSE HEARING; SEVERE ABUSE WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING MUST BE BASED ON A “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” STANDARD, NOT THE “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE” STANDARD APPLIED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER OF DISPOSITION WITHOUT HOLDING A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court’s “severe abuse” finding and the consequent termination of parental rights, determined it was error to make these rulings based upon a prior abuse hearing because “severe abuse” was not alleged in that hearing. In addition, a finding of “severe abuse” must be based on “clear and convincing evidence,” not the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applied in the prior hearing. Also, the judge should not have issued an order of disposition without holding a dispositional hearing:

… [T]he court did not have the authority, in the context of this Social Services Law § 384-b proceeding, to retroactively make a finding of severe abuse under Family Court Act § 1051 (e) based upon the evidence adduced during the prior article 10 abuse proceeding. … Family Court Act § 1051 (e) provides that in an article 10 abuse case, the court may “[i]n addition to a finding of abuse, . . . enter a finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, . . . which shall be admissible in a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to [Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (e)] . . . If the court makes such additional finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, the court shall state the grounds for its determination, which shall be based upon clear and convincing evidence.”

Thus, while it is true that a court is permitted to make a severe abuse finding as part of the disposition in an article 10 abuse case … , that did not occur here. Indeed, in the context of the underlying article 10 proceeding, petitioner did not seek a determination that Respondents severely abused the child, and the court made no such determination. Moreover, the entirety of the court’s findings in the article 10 matter were based upon a preponderance of the evidence—not clear and convincing evidence as required by the statute … . Finally, we note that the court improperly issued an order of disposition in this case before conducting a dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 631; Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [f]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.  Matter of Kevin V. (Sara L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06422, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO RESCIND THE CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT PROVIDERS WHICH DISCOURAGED THEM FROM SPEAKING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent which argued the majority was improperly issuing an advisory opinion, determined the trial judge in this medical malpractice action properly ordered plaintiff’s counsel rescind correspondence sent to treatment providers which discouraged the treatment providers from speaking with defense counsel. The correspondence accompanied the “Arons” speaking authorizations executed by the plaintiff:

… [A] plaintiff who signs an authorization allowing a treating physician to speak to defense counsel about the plaintiff’s medical condition at issue should not be allowed to send a letter separately to the same physician requesting that the physician not speak to defense counsel. Permitting plaintiffs to make such a request would undermine the purpose of the Arons authorization and, at the very least, be confusing to the physician … .

Adding to the confusion is the statement “I value and wish to protect the confidentiality of our physician-patient relationship,” which may lead the physician to conclude that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s execution of the speaking authorization, plaintiff was not actually waiving the physician-patient privilege or the privacy protections afforded by HIPAA. …

… [T]he letter … might lead the physician to believe, wrongly, that plaintiff has a right to attend any informal interview with defense counsel. … [A] defendant’s attorney may ask treating physicians to participate in ex parte interviews, which by definition do not involve the plaintiff. While a physician may insist that the plaintiff be present for such an interview, that is a decision for the physician alone to make. Just as a defendant’s attorney has no right to interview the physician informally … , a plaintiff has no right to attend the interview (the plaintiff has only the right to ask the physician for permission to attend an interview).

Based on the above, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in directing plaintiff “to send correspondence to his treating physicians rescinding all prior letters sent containing the language that the [c]ourt has deemed to be confusing, misleading and/or intimidating.”  Murphy v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 06421, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Here the letters sent to treatment providers by plaintiff’s counsel, which accompanied the “Arons” speaking authorizations, improperly discouraged the treatment providers from speaking with defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel was properly ordered to rescind the correspondence.

 

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER AND ASSAULT SECOND; THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REVERSED BECAUSE (1) ASSAULT SECOND IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER, AND (2) ASSAULT SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the assault second conviction because assault second is an inclusory concurrent count of assault on a peace officer:

… [T]he conviction of assault in the second degree cannot stand. … [T]his Court has previously determined that assault in the second degree “is an inclusory concurrent count of assault on a [peace] officer” … . Moreover, as charged here, assault in the second degree “is a lesser included offense of assault on a [peace] officer” … . As a result, that part of the judgment convicting defendant of assault in the second degree must be reversed and count 4 of the indictment dismissed … . People v Engles, 2025 NY Slip Op 06412, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

 

, ,

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.

 

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