You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

THE CITY COMMISSIONER ORDERED THE DEMOLITION OF A GRAIN ELEVATOR, A CITY LANDMARK, WHICH HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY WIND; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED A HEARING ON WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR ORDERING DEMOLITION BUT IMPROPERLY PROHIBITED THE PETITIONER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT DEMOLITION WAS NOT NECESSARY; NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering another hearing, determined that the petitioner was entitled to present evidence at the hearing about the Buffalo Commissioner of the City’s Department of Permit and Inspections Services’ (Commissioner’s) ruling that a grain elevator, a City landmark, which was damaged by wind, must be demolished. Supreme Court had confined the hearing to whether the Commissioner had a rational basis for ordering demolition and did not allow the petitioner to submit evidence. Petitioner had submitted with the petition “an unsworn and unsigned expert affidavit from a licensed architect who opined that the Grain Elevator could be adequately repaired and did not need to be demolished:”

We agree with petitioner … that, while petitioner is not entitled to a de novo hearing on the Commissioner’s determination … , the court erred in refusing to consider petitioner’s proposed evidence inasmuch as it should have afforded petitioner the opportunity to submit ” ‘any competent and relevant proof . . . bearing on the triable issue here presented and showing that any of the underlying material on which the [Commissioner] based [his] determination has no basis in fact’ . . . , or that the determination was irrational or arbitrary”  … . Matter of Campaign for Buffalo History, Architecture & Culture, Inc. v City of Buffalo, 2022 NY Slip Op 02927, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: The City Commission ordered the demolition of a city landmark which had been damaged by wind. Petitioner opposed demolition. At the hearing to determine whether there was a rational basis for the Commissioner’s decision, the petitioner was entitled to present evidence demolition was not required. Because Supreme Court did not allow petitioner to present evidence, a new hearing was necessary.

 

,

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE HUNTING TURKEY WHEN DEFENDANT SHOT PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this hunting accident case should have been granted. Defendant, like the plaintiff, was hunting turkey when he shot plaintiff and his friend. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to attempted assault:

We agree with plaintiffs that they established as a matter of law that defendant was negligent by failing to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person “of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances, commensurate with the known dangers and risks reasonably to be foreseen” … , and that defendant failed to raise an issue of fact in response. We also agree with plaintiffs that triable issues of fact regarding plaintiff’s comparative negligence do not preclude an award of summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of defendant’s negligence … . Pachan v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02684, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: Comparative negligence is no longer a bar to summary judgment on liability. Comparative negligence is relevant only to damages.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO LIFT A HEAVY BOX MANUALLY; THE FACT THAT A FORKLIFT WAS AVAILABLE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; A WORKER IS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW ORDERS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted. The Labor Law 240(1) claim was reinstated and judgment in favor of plaintiffs was granted. Apparently plaintiff was injured when lifting a heavy box after the stage manager directed him to do so. The fact that a forklift was available would only raise an issue of comparative negligence which will not defeat a Labor Law 240(1) claim:

… [A]lthough defendants established that there was an available safety device, i.e., a forklift, and that plaintiff knew that it was available and that he was expected to use it, plaintiffs established that the stage manager instructed plaintiff and his coworkers to lift the box manually. Regardless of whether that stage manager was plaintiff’s actual supervisor, plaintiff was under no obligation to demand safer methods for moving the box … . To expect plaintiff to refuse the stage manager’s demands “overlooks the realities of construction work” … .

“When faced with an . . . instruction to use an inadequate device [or no device at all], many workers would be understandably reticent to object for fear of jeopardizing their employment and their livelihoods” … . Finocchi v Live Nation Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02680, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

​Practice Point: Plaintiff was directed to lift a heavy box manually. A worker is expected to follow directions. The fact that a forklift was available was therefore not determinative. Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted.

 

,

REFUSING TO TAKE A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the count, noted that refusing to take a DWI breath test is not an offense:

… [W]e note that defendant’s “refusal to submit to a breath test did not establish a cognizable offense” … . People v Alim, 2022 NY Slip Op 02671, Fourth Dept  4-22-22

Practice Point: Refusing to take a DWI breath test is not a crime.

 

,

IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST STEPMOTHER, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the five-year orders of protection in favor of the children (re: respondent stepmother) in this neglect proceeding, determined the statutory criteria for issuance of the orders of protection were not met:

… [T]he stepmother contends that the court erred in issuing orders of protection in favor of the children with a duration of five years. We agree, and we therefore reverse the orders of protection … . In an article 10 proceeding, the court may issue an order of protection, but such order shall expire no later than the expiration date of “such other order made under this part, except as provided in subdivision four of this section” (Family Ct Act § 1056 [1]). Subdivision (4) of section 1056 allows a court to issue an independent order of protection until a child’s 18th birthday, but only against a person “who was a member of the child’s household or a person legally responsible . . . , and who is no longer a member of such household at the time of the disposition and who is not related by blood or marriage to the child or a member of the child’s household.” Here, the orders of protection do not comply with Family Court Act § 1056 (1) and (4) because no other dispositional orders were issued with respect to the children at the time the court issued the orders of protection and the stepmother, although no longer living in the home, remains married to the children’s mother … . Moreover, the court erred in issuing the dispositional orders of protection without first holding a dispositional hearing. “The Family Court Act directs that a dispositional hearing be held as a condition precedent to the entry of a dispositional order such as the order of protection granted by Family Court here” … . Matter of Kayla K. (Emma P.-T.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02668, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED BECAUSE IT WAS INDUCED BY THE JUDGE’S PROMISE THAT ALL THE COURT’S ORDERS COULD BE APPEALED; IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION THAT TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE DUPLICITOUS COULD NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice, determined the defendant’s guilty plea was induced by the judge’s promise that defendant could appeal from all the court’s orders. In fact, however, by pleading guilty defendant could not appeal the order rejecting his argument that the first two counts of the indictment were duplicitous:

We agree … with defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review … , we nevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). “A trial court is constitutionally required to ensure that a defendant, before entering a guilty plea, has a full understanding of what the plea entails and its consequences” … , and where “a guilty plea has been induced by an unfulfilled promise, the plea must be vacated or the promise must be honored” … . Here, the court repeatedly promised defendant, who was proceeding pro se, that he would retain the right to appeal from all of its orders. The court reiterated that promise during the plea colloquy and did not advise defendant that he was forfeiting any challenge by pleading guilty. We conclude, however, that “[b]y pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his . . . contention that the first two counts of the indictment were duplicitous” … . Consequently, “[i]nasmuch as the record establishes that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied on a promise of the court that could not, as a matter of law, be honored, defendant is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea” … . People v Mothersell, 2022 NY Slip Op 02661, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s guilty plea was induced by the judge’s promise all the court’s orders could be appealed. In fact, the guilty plea precluded raising on appeal defendant’s contention two indictment counts were duplicitous. Even though the issue was not preserved for appeal, the Fourth Department vacated the guilty plea.

 

ROBBERY WAS THE FELONY UPON WHICH THE FELONY ASSAULT WAS PREDICATED; THEREFORE THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT FIRST AND ROBBERY FIRST MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the sentences for assault first and robbery first should not have been imposed consecutively:

… [T]he court erred in directing that the sentence on the count of assault in the first degree run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the count of robbery in the first degree because the robbery was the predicate felony for the felony assault (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2] …). Inasmuch as “[t]he felony upon which felony assault is predicated is a material element of that crime,” the sentence imposed on the count of assault in the first degree must run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the count of robbery in the first degree … . People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02655, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: When one felony (here robbery first) is a predicate felony for another (here assault first), the sentence for the two crimes must run concurrently.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE ALLEGED ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT OCCURRED AT LEAST 24 HOURS APART; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT PROOF SUPPORTING A 20 POINT ASSESSMENT FOR A “CONTINUOUS COURSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT:” LEVEL THREE REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing the defendant’s risk level from three to two, determined the People did not prove defendant engaged in a “continuous course of sexual misconduct” which requires that the acts be at least 24 hours apart:

The court erred … in assessing 20 points under risk factor 4 for having engaged in a continuous course of sexual misconduct. Points may be assessed under risk factor 4 if, as relevant here, the People establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant engaged in “two or more acts of sexual contact, at least one of which is an act of sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, or aggravated sexual contact, which acts are separated in time by at least 24 hours” … . Here, “[a]lthough the People presented evidence that defendant engaged in acts of sexual contact with the victim on more than one occasion, they failed to establish ‘when these acts occurred relative to each other’ ” … , and thus failed “to demonstrate that such instances were separated in time by at least 24 hours” … . People v Ellis, 2022 NY Slip Op 02654, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: A 20-point SORA assessment for a continuous course of sexual misconduct requires proof the acts took place at least 24 hours apart. Here there was no proof of when the acts occurred relative to each other, therefore the 20-point assessment was struck.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION STARTED ANEW WHEN DEFENDANT MADE A PARTIAL PAYMENT; DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statute of limitations in the foreclosure action had been restarted by partial payment and defendants had waived the argument that the plaintiff did not have standing:

The partial payment exception “requires proof that ‘there was a payment of a portion of an admitted debt, made and accepted as such, accompanied by circumstances amounting to an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder’ “… . “If the exception is established, the statute of limitations begins to run anew from the date of the partial payment” … . * * *

“Having failed to interpose an answer which asserted the defense [of lack of standing] or to file a timely pre-answer motion raising that defense,” [defendant] waived his contention on his cross appeal that plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action … . Citibank, N.A. v Gifford, 2022 NY Slip Op 02650, Fourth Dept 4-22-22​

Practice Point: Partial payment of a debt after the statute of limitations has run may start the statute running anew. Failure to raise the lack of standing defense in the answer or a motion to dismiss waives it.

 

,

THE 2022 CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING MAP FAVORED DEMOCRATS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice concurrence and a two-justice partial dissent, determined the NYS 2022 congressional redistricting map was drawn to favor democrats in violation of Article III of the NYS Constitution:

… [W]e agree with petitioners and the court that the congressional map was unconstitutional in that it violated article III, § 4 (c) (5), which provides as relevant here that “[d]istricts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.”  * * *

We conclude that evidence of the largely one-party process used to enact the 2022 congressional map, a comparison of the 2022 congressional map to the 2012 congressional map, and the expert opinion and supporting analysis of Sean P. Trende, met petitioners’ burden of establishing that the 2022 congressional map was drawn to discourage competition and favor democrats in violation of article III, § 4 (c) (5). First, democratic leaders in the legislature drafted the 2022 congressional redistricting map without any republican input, and the map was adopted by the legislature without a single republican vote in favor of it. Second, under the 2012 congressional map there were 19 elected democrats and 8 elected republicans and under the 2022 congressional map there were 22 democrat-majority and 4 republican-majority districts. Matter of Harkenrider v Hochul, 2022 NY Slip Op 02648, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

 

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