You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE THIRD DEGRESS IS A LESSER INCLUSORY COUNT OF GRAND LARCENY FOURTH DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the unauthorized use of a vehicle third degree count should nave been dismissed as a lesser inclusory count of grand larceny fourth degree:

… [T]he part of the judgment convicting defendant of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree must be reversed and count two of the indictment dismissed because that offense is a lesser inclusory concurrent count of count one, grand larceny in the fourth degree … . People v Mitchell, 2022 NY Slip Op 06359, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Unauthorized use of a vehicle third degree is a lesser inclusory count of grand larceny fourth degree.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL STATED DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA WAS WITHOUT MERIT; DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE COURT INCORRECTLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HAD BEEN DECIDED IN A PRIOR APPEAL: DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to determined defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Counsel stated the pro se motion did not have merit, taking a position adverse to the client’s position. In addition, defense counsel and the court incorrectly told defendant that the issues raised in defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea had been determined in a prior appeal:

When defense counsel takes a position adverse to his or her client, “a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion” … .

Here, by stating that there were no grounds for defendant’s pro se motion, defense counsel essentially said that it lacked merit, which constitutes taking a position adverse to defendant … .

It appears from the record that defense counsel advised defendant that the issues raised by defendant in his pro se motion to withdraw his plea had already been decided against him in the prior appeal. The court agreed with defense counsel’s interpretation of our ruling. Both defense counsel and the court were incorrect. People v Hemingway, 2022 NY Slip Op 06356, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: If defense counsel takes a position adverse to defendant’s position, the defendant has not received effective assistance and is entitled to new counsel. Here defense counsel stated defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw the plea was without merit. The matter was remitted for assignment of new counsel and consideration of defendant’s motion.

 

THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR WITNESSES READY FOR TRIAL IN ORDER FOR A STATEMENT OF READINESS TO BE VALID; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATEMENTS OF READINESS WERE NOT ILLUSORY; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s speedy-trial dismissal of the indictment, over a dissent, determined County Court should not have deemed several of the prosecutor’s statements of readiness illusory because the witnesses were not ready for trial at the time the statements were made:

Prior to August 4, 2021, no adjournment was caused by the People’s failure to have their witnesses ready for trial. Rather, the matter was adjourned on those occasions due to other, older matters proceeding to trial before this case was reached. “The People are not required to contact their witnesses on every adjourned date . . . , nor do they have to be able to produce their witnesses instantaneously in order for a statement of readiness to be valid” … . To the contrary, ” ‘[p]ostreadiness delay may be charge[able] to the People when the delay is attributable to their inaction and directly implicates their ability to proceed to trial’ ” … . Here, although the time after the People withdrew their statement of readiness was properly charged to them, there was no prior delay attributable to the People’s inaction. Consequently, the prior statements of readiness were not illusory … . People v Hill, 2022 NY Slip Op 05626, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor acknowledged the trial witnesses had not be contacted at the time statements of readiness were made because other trials were scheduled before the trial in this case. No delay was attributable to the People’s inaction. Therefore the statements of readiness should not have been deemed illusory and the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy-trial grounds.

 

,

THE DETERIORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND MOTHER WAS A SUFFICIENT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT AN INQUIRY RE: FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; AFTER CONSIDERING THE MERITS, THE APPELLATE COURT AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father demonstrated a change in circumstance (deterioration of the relationship with mother, inability to communicate) sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the joint custody arrangement should be modified, and the record supported awarding father sole custody:

… [T]he court had previously awarded joint custody to the parties on the basis that communications between them had “improved and the two were working together more than ever before, the results of which were positive for [the subject child].” However, the evidence at the hearing established that, after the initial custody award was entered, the parties reverted to ” ‘an acrimonious relationship and are not able to communicate effectively with respect to the needs and activities of their child[ ], and it is well settled that joint custody is not feasible under those circumstances’ ” … . …

… [W]e conclude that it is in the child’s best interests to award the father sole custody. Although the parties have shared alternating week custody since the entry of the prior custody order, the evidence at the hearing established that the father “provided a more stable environment for the child and was better able to nurture the child” … . The evidence further established that the mother made a concerted effort to interfere with the father’s contact with the child by, inter alia, disparaging him to educational and medical professionals, which raises a strong probability that the mother ” ‘is unfit to act as custodial parent’ ” … and warrants the grant of sole custody to the father…. . Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 05651, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: A deterioration of the relationship between father and mother was a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry re: father’s petition for a modification of custody. The record was sufficient for the appellate court to determined sole custody should be awarded to father.

 

,

FATHER WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY FAMILY COURT ACT 1113 (FATHER WAS SERVED BY EMAIL) AND THEREFORE THE 30-DAY APPEAL DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY; FATHER’S STRIKING THE 14-YEAR-OLD CHILD ONCE DURING A MULTI-PERSON MELEE AFTER THE CHILD BROKE THE WINDOW OF FATHER’S CAR WITH A ROCK DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) Family Court did not follow the statutory procedure for serving father with the order of fact-finding and disposition and, therefore, father’s appeal was timely; and (2) father’s striking the child once during a multi-person melee, after the child threw a rock at father’s car, did not constitute neglect:

… “[T]here is no evidence in the record that the father was served with the order of fact-finding and disposition by a party or the child’s attorney, that he received the order in court, or that the Family Court mailed the order to the father” … . Instead, despite using a form order that provided typewritten check boxes for the two methods of service by the court mentioned in the statute (i.e., in court or by mail) … , the court here crossed out the word “mailed” and edited the form to indicate that the order was emailed to, among others, the father’s attorney. The statute, however, does not provide for service by the court through email or any other electronic means … . … Inasmuch as the father was served the order by the court via email, which is not a method provided for in Family Court Act § 1113, and there is no indication that he was served by any of the methods authorized by the statute, we conclude that the time to take an appeal did not begin to run and that it cannot be said that the father’s appeal is untimely … .* * *

 … [W]e conclude that, “[g]iven the age of the subject child, the provocation, and the dynamics of the incident, the [father’s] act against [the child] did not constitute neglect” … . The record establishes that, during the course of a multi-person melee that included the 15-year-old sister beating up the 18-year-old daughter of the father’s girlfriend, the 14-year-old child threw a rock at the vehicle causing the window to break, to which provocation the father instantly reacted by striking the child once either in the face or the back of the head … . Petitioner presented no evidence that the child sustained any injury or required medical treatment as a result of the single strike by the father during the altercation, and the police who investigated the incident did not file any charges … . Matter of Grayson S. (Thomas S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 05649, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here father was served with the order of fact-finding and disposition by email, a method not prescribed by Family Court Act 1113. Therefore the 30-day time limit for bringing an appeal did not apply and father’s appeal was timely. Father struck the 14-year-old child once during a multi-person melee after the child broke the window of father’s car with a rock. Father’s striking the child, which did not cause injury, did not constitute neglect.

 

,

A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (2) CAN BE BASED UPON JUROR MISCONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; BUT HERE THE DEFENSE WAS AWARE OF THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT PRIOR TO THE VERDICT AND DID NOT OBJECT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department explained that a motion to set aside a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) or (2) cannot be based upon an issue the defense could have addressed (but did not) prior to the verdict. Although CPL 330.30 (2) allows a motion to set aside the verdict based upon juror conduct of which the defendant was not aware prior to the verdict, here the defense was aware of the alleged juror conduct:

” ‘A trial court’s authority to set aside a verdict under CPL 330.30 (1) is limited to grounds which, if raised on appeal, would require reversal as a matter of law . . . Accordingly, only a claim of error that is properly preserved for appellate review may serve as the basis to set aside the verdict’ ” … . Here, despite being afforded an opportunity to object or seek further relief when the court brought the issue to the parties’ attention during deliberations, defendant did not do so and thus failed to preserve his claim … .. The court therefore properly denied without a hearing the motion insofar as it was based on CPL 330.30 (1) because defendant’s unpreserved argument “did not furnish a proper predicate for setting aside the verdict” … .

A trial court is also authorized to set aside a verdict on the ground that “during the trial there occurred, out of the presence of the court, improper conduct by a juror, or improper conduct by another person in relation to a juror, which may have affected a substantial right of the defendant and which was not known to the defendant prior to the rendition of the verdict” (CPL 330.30 [2] …). Here, the record establishes that the alleged juror misconduct “was addressed by the court and counsel on the record at the time of trial” and that defendant thus “had knowledge of the matter prior to the verdict” … . We therefore conclude that the court properly denied without a hearing the motion insofar as it was based on CPL 330.30 (2) because “the juror misconduct alleged was known to . . . defendant and . . . defendant had the opportunity to act on the information but failed to do so prior to the verdict” … .People v Kenney, 2022 NY Slip Op 05645, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: A motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) must be based upon preserved errors which could be raised on appeal. A motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2) may be based upon juror misconduct of which the defendant was not aware prior to the verdict. Here, however, the defense was aware of the conduct and did not object.

 

,

A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD; I.E., ISSUES THAT CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL; HERE THE MOTION WAS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s granting of defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion to set aside the jury verdict, determined the motion was improperly based upon matters outside the record. A CPL 330.30 (1) motion must be based upon issues which can be raised on appeal:

Pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), following the issuance of a verdict and before sentencing a court may set aside a verdict on “[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.” Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) was procedurally improper because it was “premised on matters outside the existing trial record, and CPL 330.30 (1) did not permit defendant[] to expand the record to include matters that did not ‘appear[ ] in the record’ prior to the filing of the motion[]” … . We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion, and reinstate the verdict inasmuch as defendant’s claim was not reviewable pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) … . People v Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 05647, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: A motion to set aside a jury verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) must be based upon matters which are in the record; i.e., issues which can be raised on appeal. Here the motion was based on matters outside the record and should have been denied on that ground.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS BEING TREATED AT THE HOSPITAL, WAS IN CUSTODY AND HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE DEFENDANT CALLED A POLICE OFFICER OVER AND SAID “I’M BEAT UP;” THE OFFICER THEN ASKED “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by the defendant to a police officer while he was being treated at the hospital should have been suppressed. Although the initial statement “I’m beat up” was spontaneous, the statements made after the police officer asked “what happened?” were not spontaneous and were made while the defendant was in custody:

… [I]t is undisputed that defendant was in police custody at the time he made the statements and that no one read defendant his Miranda warnings prior to defendant making the statements.

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant “called [the officer] over” to his bed and said “I’m beat up,” after which the officer asked defendant “what happened.” Defendant then explained the circumstances surrounding how he allegedly came into possession of a weapon he was not legally authorized to possess. We conclude that defendant’s initial statement, “I’m beat up,” was not subject to suppression because it was ” ‘spontaneous and not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence’ ” … . The court, however, erred in refusing to suppress the remainder of his statements, which were made in response to the officer’s question that was intended to elicit a response, and thus those statements cannot be said to have been “genuine[ly] spontane[ous],” i.e., they were not ” ‘spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause’ ” … . People v Corey, 2022 NY Slip Op 05646, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Although defendant’s initial statement to the police office “I;m beat up” was spontaneous and not subject to suppression, defendant’s answer to the officer’s question “what happened?” was not spontaneous and should have been suppressed.

 

, , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW PLOW WAS “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE APPLIED; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this snow-plow traffic-accident case should not have been granted because there were questions of fact concerning whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for snow plows was applicable. Although the “reckless disregard” standard may still apply where, as here, the snow plow is raised, the snow plow must be salting the road or otherwise “working its run” at the time of the accident:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including [snowplows], which are ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . , and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care” … . The exemption “applies only when such work is in fact being performed at the time of the accident” … , which includes a snowplow engaged in plowing or salting a road … . Although the exemption does “not apply if the snowplow . . . [is] merely traveling from one route to another route” … , a snowplow may be “engaged in work even if the plow blade [is] up at the time of the accident and no salting [is] occurring” when the snowplow is nevertheless “working [its] ‘run’ or ‘beat’ at the time of the accident” … .

… [W]e conclude that the State failed to establish as a matter of law that the snowplow was “actually engaged in work on a highway” at the time of the accident (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b] …). Lynch-Miller v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05640, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here the snow plow was raised when the traffic accident occurred. There were questions of fact about whether the snow plow was salting the road or otherwise working its run when at the time. Therefore, there were questions of fact about whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for vehicles engaged in highway work applied.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the repeal of the COVID-19-related Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law sections 3080-3082) should not be applied retroactively. Therefore, the immunity from civil liability provided by the EDTPA for health care workers who treated COVID-19 patients was in effect when the causes of action in the complaint arose. The complaint, which alleged plaintiff nursing-home resident was not properly tested and treated for COVID-19, was dismissed:

We … conclude that applying the repeal of EDTPA to the allegations in the complaint would have retroactive effect “by impairing rights [defendants] possessed in the past, increasing their liability for past conduct and imposing new duties with respect to transactions already completed” … . “Because the [repeal of EDTPA], if applied to past conduct, would impact substantive rights and have retroactive effect, the presumption against retroactivity is triggered” … . Ruth v Elderwood At Amherst, 2022 NY Slip Op 05637, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: The immunity from civil liability provided to health care workers who treated COVID-19 patients while the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) was in effect remains despite the subsequent repeal of the EDTPA. In other words, the repeal of the EDTPA is not given retroactive effect. The decision includes an exhaustive discussion and analysis of the retroactive application of statutes.

 

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