You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY EACH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENDANT MEDICAL CENTER TO SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not obligated to provide the name of every negligent employee of the defendant Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMC) to survive summary judgment in this medical malpractice action:

Contrary to the court’s determination, plaintiff was not required to provide the name of every allegedly negligent actor engaging in conduct within the scope of employment for ECMC … inasmuch as ECMC was on notice of the claims against it based on the allegations in the amended complaint, as amplified by plaintiff’s bill of particulars to ECMC, noting failures and omissions by ECMC’s employees. Indeed, ECMC is in the best position to identify its own employees and contractors and, as the creator of decedent’s medical records, ECMC had notice of who treated decedent and of any allegations of negligence by its nursing staff.  Braxton v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04866, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff was not required to identify each allegedly negligent employee of the medical center to survive summary judgment.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS-EMPLOYEES SEEKING THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 220 ARE ENTITLED TO FULL SUPPLEMENTAL (FRINGE) BENEFITS, AS WELL AS WAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs-employees were entitled to full payment of their supplemental (fringe) benefits in this Labor Law 220 action seeking the prevailing wage for public works projects:

Plaintiffs are members of a class of employees who allege that defendant failed to pay them prevailing supplemental (or fringe) benefits for work they performed on various public works contracts. * * *

Pursuant to Labor Law § 220 (3) (b), contractors undertaking a public works project must provide their employees with supplemental benefits “in accordance with prevailing practices for private sector work in the same locality” … . Supplemental benefits are defined as “all remuneration for employment paid in any medium other than cash, or reimbursement for expenses, or any payments which are not ‘wages’ within the meaning of the law, including, but not limited to, health, welfare, non-occupational disability, retirement, vacation benefits, holiday pay[,] life insurance and apprenticeship training” (§ 220 [5] [b]). * * *

Consider, for example, a hypothetical contractor that fails to pay prevailing wages (as opposed to benefits) to its employees on a public works project, and then pays the shortfall in wages into a common fund out of which all of its employees are compensated, including those who are not prevailing wage workers. Due to the dilution of funds resulting from those funds also being paid to the nonprevailing wage workers, the employees who worked on the public works contracts would not receive the full wages they would be entitled to for their work on the public works project. Under that scenario, the contractor would clearly have failed to comply with Labor Law § 220 (3) (a), notwithstanding that the contractor paid the same amount in wages to a fund as it would have paid if the prevailing wage workers had been paid directly according to scale. We do not perceive any justification in law or logic for treating supplemental benefits differently from wages. Vandee v Suit-Kote Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04852, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: In an action pursuant to Labor Law 220 seeking the prevailing wage for public works projects, the employees are entitled to full compensation for supplemental (fringe) benefits, as well as wages.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTION UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY; DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED A FRIEND WHO WAS TO SELL COCAINE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF SHARED INTENT WAS TOO WEAK TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance under an accomplice theory. Defendant agreed to go with her friend who was going to sell cocaine. The majority concluded the evidence defendant was going to be compensated proved shared intent. The two dissenters found the evidence defendant was to be compensated was too weak:

Here, the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom establish that, two days before her arrest, defendant agreed that, in exchange for compensation, she would either drive or otherwise accompany the friend to complete a sale of cocaine. According to defendant’s testimony, the friend indicated that she wanted defendant to accompany her because they were friends and she did not want to be alone with the two people involved in the proposed drug transaction, i.e., the drug dealer and the ostensible buyer. * * *

From the dissent:

Here, the People’s theory at trial was that defendant intentionally aided her friend’s possession of drugs by agreeing to drive her friend to another city where the friend would engage in the sale of such drugs, and that defendant would return by bus. However, the evidence in this case, when considered in the light most favorable to the People …, established that defendant merely accompanied her friend. People v Lewis, 2022 NY Slip Op 04846, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here defendant accompanied a friend who was to sell cocaine, The majority held the evidence of shared intent, which included evidence defendant was to be compensated, proved shared intent. Two dissenters argued the evidence of shared intent was too weak to support the conviction.

 

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT—THE COLLAPSE OF A DECK—EVER HAPPENED IN THIS LABOR LAW 24O (1) ACTION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court  in this Labor Law 240(1) action, determined there were questions of fact about whether the accident (the collapse of a deck) ever happened at all:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention and the court’s determination, the assertion of defendant that an accident resulting from a collapse or dislodging of the deck as described by plaintiff and the foreman may not have occurred at all is not based on “speculation without factual support” … . Rather, defendant’s assertion is based on the supervisors’ firsthand observations of an intact deck on the morning after the alleged accident, coupled with the testimony of the foreman, which calls into question whether a repair of the deck could have been made before the supervisors’ inspection, from which a factfinder could permissibly draw the inference that the alleged collapse did not occur at all … . Hann v S&J Morrell, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04447, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Unusual Labor Law 240(1) case where Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion but the appellate court held there were questions of fact whether the accident—the collapse of a deck—ever happened.

 

, , ,

PETITIONERS SOUGHT FUNDS THE DECEDENT HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE CORPORATION AS CLAIMS ON DECEDENT’S ESTATE, ALLEGING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED ANEW WHEN THE DECEDENT ACKNOWELDGED THE DEBT IN A DEPOSITION; THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS TOLL IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DEBT IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE PARTY TO BE CHARGED, NOT TO THE QUASI-CONTRACT ALLEGED BY PETITIONERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined decedent’s acknowledgement of a debt in a deposition did not start the statute of limitations anew because there was no written contract to which General Obligations Law 17-101 could apply:

In 2011, decedent removed funds from the corporate entity, and he later acknowledged that some of those funds belonged to petitioners. Decedent died in 2018 without returning the funds owed to petitioners. * * *

The tolling provision that the Surrogate relied on is General Obligations Law § 17—101. That provision states, in pertinent part, that “[a]n acknowledgment or promise contained in a writing signed by the party to be charged thereby is the only competent evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take an action out of the operation of the provisions of limitations of time for commencing actions under the civil practice law and rules.” Here, petitioners did not allege that they had a contract with decedent; rather, they alleged claims sounding in quasi-contract, which is “not [a] contract[] at all” … . Thus, General Obligations Law § 17—101, which applies only where there is “competent evidence of a new or existing contract,” does not apply here … . Matter of Reich, 2022 NY Slip Op 04446, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: In order to start the statute of limitations anew on a debt pursuant to General Obligations Law 17-101, the debt must be acknowledged in a writing signed by the party to be charged.

 

, ,

MOTHER WAS EXPERIENCING COVID-LIKE SYMPTOMS AND THE COURT RULES PROHIBITED HER ENTRY; HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion in denying mother’s request for an adjournment:

… [T]he court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request for an adjournment. The mother had not previously requested an adjournment, and there was no indication in the record that an adjournment would have adversely affected the child … . Further, the mother was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and, under the court’s own rules, she was prohibited from entering the courthouse … . We therefore vacate those parts of the order determining that the mother permanently neglected the subject child and terminating her parental rights … . Matter of Jiryan S., 2022 NY Slip Op 04514. Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here mother was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and requested an adjournment. Court rules prohibited her entry into the building. Her request for an adjournment should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM BY PLAINTIFF’S COWORKER DURING A FIREARMS TRAINING SESSION FOR ARMORED-CAR GUARDS WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT COWORKER’S SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s exclusive remedy in this accidental shooting case was Workers’ Compensation. Plaintiff and defendant coworker were both armored-car guards attending a firearms training course required by their employer when plaintiff was shot. When plaintiff and defendant coworker were seated at a table waiting for the course to begin the coworker took out his loaded firearm and it discharged as he attempted to disassemble it. The bullet went through the table and struck plaintiff in the leg:

The record establishes that firearms were permitted in the classroom and that trainees would generally keep the weapons in a holster or a gun box but were prohibited from taking out and handling firearms in the classroom. Defendant was thus attending a mandatory firearms training course at which he was required to have the pistol for which he was seeking certification, the training was directly related to his job duties that involved carrying a firearm, he was permitted to have the firearm in the classroom, and he simply violated a safety rule by handling the firearm in the classroom, thereby causing it to accidentally discharge. Defendant’s violation of the safety provision “was not, in these circumstances, of such type or magnitude as to take . . . defendant out of the scope of his employment” … . In other words, defendant’s conduct constituted a simple lack of reasonable care, i.e., negligence … , and “[t]he Workers’ Compensation Law offers the only remedy for injuries caused by the coemployee’s negligence” … . Guida v Rivera Investigations, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04443, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: During a firearms training course required by plaintiff’s employer, a coworker negligently took out his loaded firearm which accidentally discharged, striking plaintiff. Because the coworker’s actions, although negligent, were within the scope of the coworker’s employment, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE HAD BEEN MADE AWARE A WEEK BEFORE THE HEARING THAT MOTHER’S ATTORNEY WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING HER; AT THE HEARING MOTHER EXPLAINED SHE HAD COMMUNICATED WITH ANOTHER LAWYER WHO COULD NOT ATTEND THAT DAY; MOTHER ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT; THE JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DENYING THE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court in this custody proceeding, determined mother’s request for an adjournment should have been granted. Mother’s relationship with her attorney had broken down. The attorney had notified the judge a week before and the attorney did not appear for the hearing. At the hearing, mother told the judge she had communicated with another lawyer (who had other obligations) and asked for an adjournment. The request denied and mother represented herself:

Approximately one week prior to the hearing on the father’s petition, the mother’s attorney informed Family Court that there had been a breakdown in her attorney-client relationship with the mother, as a result of which she was no longer representing the mother, and she requested an adjournment of the hearing. On the morning of the hearing, the court failed to make any inquiry of the mother concerning the fact that her attorney was not present at the hearing, nor did the court make any mention of the attorney’s adjournment request. The mother herself then sought an adjournment and confirmed to the court that there had been a fundamental breakdown in the relationship with her attorney. The mother explained that she had spoken to, and scheduled a meeting with, a new attorney and that the new attorney could not be present due to a preexisting obligation. …

… [T]he court abused its discretion in denying her request to adjourn the hearing … . The record establishes that the mother’s request was not a delay tactic and did not result from her lack of diligence in retaining new counsel … . We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing on the petition. Matter of Dupont v Armstrong, 2022 NY Slip Op 04509, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here mother had never requested an adjournment before and the judge was aware mother’s relationship with her attorney had broken down. At the time of the hearing mother told the judge she had communicated with another lawyer who could not attend that day and asked for an adjournment. The judge’s denial of the request was an abuse of discretion.

 

, ,

ONE OF MOTHER’S CHILDREN OPENED A LOCKED WINDOW, TOOK OUT THE SCREEN AND DROPPED HIS SIBLING TWO STORIES WHILE MOTHER WAS HOME; MOTHER COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT FINDING WAS REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the neglect findings. Although mother knew one of her children was sometimes aggressive, she could not have known he would open a locked window, take out the screen, and drop his sibling two stories. Apparently mother was in the bathroom with the door open when this happened. In addition, neither the children’s hygiene nor the condition of the apartment established neglect. The Fourth Department noted that, although no appeal lies from a decision, as opposed to an order, the paper here met the essential requirements of an order:

… [T]here was nothing intrinsically dangerous about leaving two of the children to eat and watch television while the mother was in the bathroom with the door open … . The record establishes that the mother knew that one of her children was sometimes aggressive towards his younger siblings, but there is no evidence in the record that she was aware that he may open a locked window, remove the screen, and drop his sibling from a height of two stories … . In making that determination, we note that the window involved in the incident was not deemed dangerous by a caseworker during a home visit less than a month before the incident.

… [P]etitioner’s evidence regarding the hygiene of the children and the condition of the apartment, which petitioner’s caseworker testified met “minimal standards,” was not sufficient to establish neglect … . Further, although a “finding of neglect may be entered where, though [being] financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so, a parent fails to provide the child[ren] with adequate clothing and basic medical care” … , here, “[n]o evidence was presented at the fact-finding hearing concerning the financial status of the mother” … . Matter of Silas W., 2022 NY Slip Op 04506, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Mother was in the bathroom with the door open when one of her children opened a locked window, took out the screen and dropped his sibling two stories. That scenario did not support the neglect finding. Neither the children’s hygiene nor the condition of the apartment warranted a neglect finding.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE SENTENCES EITHER BECAUSE THE CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL OR BECAUSE THE GUILTY PLEAS WERE INDUCED BY THE PROMISE OF ILLEGAL CONCURRENT SENTENCES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, raising issues not raised in the appeals, determined the concurrent sentences imposed by the judge had to be vacated because the judge did not put the reasons for the concurrent sentences on the record. All the sentences were vacated because the guilty pleas were induced by a promise of illegal concurrent sentences:

… [D]efendant committed the crimes to which he pleaded guilty in appeal Nos. 2 and 3 while released on recognizance for the charge to which he pleaded guilty in appeal No. 1, and defendant also committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty in appeal No. 2 while released on recognizance for the charge to which he pleaded guilty in appeal No. 3. Thus, in the absence of a statement of the facts and circumstances warranting concurrent sentences set forth on the record, the court was required to direct that the felony sentences run consecutively (see § 70.25 [2-b] …). …

A court may, in the interest of justice, impose a concurrent sentence for a conviction of assault in the second degree under Penal Law § 120.05 (7), provided that the court sets forth in the record its reasons for imposing a concurrent sentence (see Penal Law § 70.25 [5] [c] …) … [T]he court imposed a concurrent sentence without setting forth its reason on the record.

… [B]ecause defendant’s guilty pleas in appeal Nos. 1 through 5 were all induced by the promise of illegal concurrent sentencing, we must also vacate the sentence imposed in appeal No. 4, and in each of the five appeals we remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to either withdraw his guilty plea or be resentenced in compliance with Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) and (5) … . People v Horton, 2022 NY Slip Op 04501, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Sentences for crimes committed when defendant has been released on his own recognizance can not be concurrent unless the judge puts the relevant facts and reasoning on the record. The same goes for assault second. Here the reasons for the concurrent sentences were not put on the record, rendering the concurrent sentences illegal. Because all the guilty pleas were induced by the promise of concurrent sentences, all the sentences were vacated. The “illegal concurrent sentences” issue had not been brought up on appeal.

 

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