You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

ALTHOUGH FATHER, WHO HAD BEEN IN THE MILITARY, HAD NOT PROCURED HOUSING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS UNDER-SIX-MONTH-OLD SON, HE DEMONSTRATED HE WAS WILLING AND ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD; THEREFORE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS WAS REQUIRED AND CUSTODY WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO HIM; THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER’S FAILURE TO PROCURE HOUSING RENDERED HIM UNABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined father demonstrated he is willing and able to enter a full relationship with his under-six-year-old child and, therefore, his consent to adoption by the petitioners-respondents was required and he was properly awarded custody of the child. The dissent argued father, who was in the military, made no attempt to procure housing for himself and the child and, therefore, did not demonstrate he was able to care for the child:

We … disagree with our dissenting colleague and conclude that the father established his ability to assume custody of the child. Contrary to the position of the dissent and petitioners, custody and housing are separate and distinct concepts. A parent who lacks housing for a child is not legally precluded from obtaining custody. Certainly, active military members should not lose custody of a child due to their service to our country. Many parents enlist the aid of family members to help them provide housing, including single parents who serve in the military. That temporary inability to provide housing should not preclude them from asserting their custodial rights to the children where, as here, they have established their intent to embrace their parental responsibility. Matter of William, 2022 NY Slip Op 03831, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: The Fourth Department noted that custody and housing are separate and distinct concepts. Although father, who had been in the military, had not procured housing for himself and the child, he demonstrated he was willing and able to care for the child. Therefore his consent to adoption by the petitioners-respondents was required and custody was properly awarded to him.

 

, , ,

AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEGUN AND WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED, THE JUDGE BECAME ILL AND SOUGHT A COVID TEST; AFTER THE NEGATIVE TEST-RESULT, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSENT, DECLARED A MISTRIAL; THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER A CONTINUANCE OR THE SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION PRECLUDED RETRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department granted defendant’s petition for a writ of prohibition barring retrial on the ground of double jeopardy. A jury was selected and three witnesses had testified when the trial judge became ill and scheduled a COVID test (which came back negative). The judge ultimately, sua sponte, declared a mistrial without defendant’s consent. Because there were alternatives to a mistrial, a continuance, for example, the double-jeopardy prohibition precluded retrial:

… [T]here was no manifest necessity for the mistrial, and the court therefore abused its discretion in granting it sua sponte … . The record establishes that the court did not consider the alternatives to a mistrial, such as a continuance … or substitution of another judge … . “[I]f the judge acts so abruptly as to not permit consideration of the alternatives . . . or otherwise acts irrationally or irresponsibly . . . or solely for convenience of the court and jury . . . , retrial will be barred” … . “The court has the duty to consider alternatives to a mistrial and to obtain enough information so that it is clear that a mistrial is actually necessary” … . Matter of McNair v McNamara, 2022 NY Slip Op 03825, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the judge became ill after the trial had begun and declared a mistrial without defendant’s consent and without considering a continuance or the substitution of another judge. There was no manifest necessity for the mistrial. The double-jeopardy prohibition therefore precluded retrial.

 

, ,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ARMED AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FRISK HIM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT WHEN HE THREW HIS COAT AT AN OFFICER AND RAN BECAUSE THE POLICE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ATTEMPT THE FRISK; INDICTMENT DISMISSED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A THEORY WHICH WOULD SUPPORT DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION BUT WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE BELOW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police did not have a reasonable suspicion defendant was armed and therefore should not have attempted to frisk him when he got out of the vehicle. The fact that defendant threw his coat at the officer and ran did not justify defendant’s arrest for obstructing governmental administration because the police conduct (the attempted frisk) was not authorized:

… [T]he police proceeded to an attempted frisk by approaching the passenger side of the truck, opening the door, and directing defendant to exit the truck so that, as they informed defendant, they could perform a frisk of his person … . The attempted frisk was unlawful, however, because the record establishes that the police did not have ” ‘knowledge of some fact or circumstance that support[ed] a reasonable suspicion that . . . [defendant was] armed or pose[d] a threat to [their] safety’ ” … . Furthermore, even though defendant, despite being instructed to leave his coat in the truck, grabbed the coat, threw it onto one of the officers, and fled in the grassy area by the side of the interstate highway, instead of submitting to the frisk of his person, the police lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree based on his alleged obstruction of the officers’ attempted frisk, because that police conduct was not authorized … . Moreover, while the officers had also indicated to defendant that they were going to perform a search of the truck, the People did not rely below on the theory that defendant was properly arrested for obstructing a lawful search of the truck, nor, as the dissent states, did the court “explicitly base[] its decision on that theory.” We thus conclude that, as “an appellate court[, we] may not uphold a police action on a theory not argued before the suppression court” … . People v Hodge, 2022 NY Slip Op 03821, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and therefore should not have attempted to frisk him. The fact that the defendant threw his coat at an officer and ran did not provide probable cause for arrest because the police conduct (attempting to frisk him) was not authorized. An appellate court cannot consider a theory which would support the denial of suppression but which was not raised below.

 

,

THE “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A REINSURER WHERE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PRIMARY INSURER WERE CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant reinsurer was not required to indemnify the plaintiff primary insurer because the primary insurer was not obligated to make the pay-out under its umbrella policy. The so-called “follow the settlements” doctrine did not apply because the payments made by the plaintiff were clearly beyond the scope of the original policy:

Where it applies, the follow-the-settlements doctrine “ordinarily bars challenge by a reinsurer to the decision of [the cedent] to settle a case for a particular amount” … . Specifically, under that doctrine, “a reinsurer is required to indemnify for payments reasonably within the terms of the original policy, even if technically not covered by it. A reinsurer cannot second guess the good faith liability determinations made by its reinsured . . . The rationale behind this doctrine is two-fold: first, it meets the goal of maximizing coverage and settlement and second, it streamlines the reimbursement process and reduces litigation” …  There are, however, limitations to the doctrine. The follow-the-settlements doctrine “insulates a reinsured’s liability determinations from challenge by a reinsurer unless they are fraudulent, in bad faith, or the payments are clearly beyond the scope of the original policy or in excess of [the reinsurer’s] agreed-to exposure” … . Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Abeille Gen. Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03815, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the “follow the settlements” doctrine did not apply to a reinsurer who refused to cover payments made by the primary insurer because those payments were clearly beyond the scope of the original policy.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR, HIS COUNSEL APPEARED AND FATHER WAS THEREFORE NOT IN DEFAULT; BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT, APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the portions of the order entered on default, determined father’s failure to appear was not a default because his counsel appeared. Because father was not in default, appeal is not precluded:

We agree with the father that Family Court erred in entering the order upon his default based on his failure to appear in court. The record establishes that the father “was represented by counsel, and we have previously determined that, [w]here a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded” … . Matter of Akol v Afet, 2022 NY Slip Op 03641, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: When counsel appears in Family Court, the party represented by counsel is not in default. An appeal is available to a party not in default.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INTERVIEW A POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY WITNESS; MOTION TO VACATE THE MURDER CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defense counsel did not interview a witness who, based on the witness’s testimony at the hearing on the motion to vacate, would have testified defendant was not at the scene of the shooting:

… [W]e conclude that defendant met his burden of establishing that defense counsel’s failure to interview the potentially exculpatory witness constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, inasmuch as the record before us reflects “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct” … . The failure by defendant’s trial counsel to interview the witness cannot be characterized as a legitimate strategic decision because, “without collecting that information, [defense] counsel could not make an informed decision as to whether the witness[‘s] evidence might be helpful at trial” … . To the extent that the defense team deemed the witness not credible due to his criminal record or history, that alone “does not excuse trial counsel’s failure to investigate since a witness’s unsavory background[ ] does not render his or her testimony incredible as a matter of law” … . Further, we conclude that, “even if the witness[‘s] criminal record[] provided a strategic basis for choosing not to present [his] testimony, it does not provide an excuse for [defense] counsel’s failure to investigate [him] as [a] possible witness[ ]” … . Moreover, the witness’s testimony at the CPL article 440 hearing was wholly consistent with the theory pursued by trial counsel, namely that defendant was not present at the shooting and that the crime was instead committed by an individual seeking to rob the victims’ residence, and the proposed witness would have provided the only eyewitness testimony at trial as to the shooting. People v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 03625, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Here defense counsel was made aware of a potentially exculpatory witness and did not interview him. The fact that defense counsel felt the witness was not credible did not excuse the failure to investigate. Defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was granted by the appellate court.

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, WHICH IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY AT TRIAL; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS PLEA WAS RENDERED INVOLUNTARY BY COUNSEL’S INACCURATE ADVICE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there should be a hearing on whether defendant’s plea to attempted gang assault was involuntary. Defendant contended the plea was based on inaccurate advice from counsel. “Attempted gang assault” is a legal impossibility for trial purposes:

… [W]e agree with defendant that “attempted gang assault in the second degree is a legal impossibility for trial purposes. . . , as ‘there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended’ ” … . Based on that law and our review of the record, we further agree with defendant that the advice of defense counsel regarding the possibility of a conviction at trial of attempted gang assault in the second degree was erroneous.

Nevertheless, “[i]t is well settled that permission to withdraw a guilty plea rests largely within the court’s discretion” … . “Whether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors ‘including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused’ . . . That the defendant allegedly received inaccurate information regarding [the possibility of a conviction at trial and the resulting impact upon] his possible sentence exposure is another factor which must be considered by the court, but it is not, in and of itself, dispositive” … . “Where . . . the record raises a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea, an evidentiary hearing is required” … . People v Davis, 2022 NY Slip Op 03610, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: “Attempted gang assault” is a legal impossibility at trial. Here defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether his plea to attempted gang assault was involuntary because of counsel’s inaccurate advice about the possibility of conviction at trial.

 

, ,

THE PROOF DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A FIREARM FOUND IN THE CEILING OF A HOUSE WHERE DEFENDANT WAS A GUEST WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AT THE TIME THE FIREARM WAS SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the proof defendant constructively possessed a firearm was legally insufficient. The firearm was in the drop ceiling of a living room in which defendant was present as a guest. DNA evidence may have demonstrated defendant possessed the firearm at a point in time, but did not demonstrate constructive possession at the time the firearm was seized:

A defendant’s mere presence in the house where the weapon is found is insufficient to establish constructive possession, and it is undisputed here that defendant had no connection to the apartment other than being there for a brief period of time for the purpose of gambling … . Further, the People failed to establish that defendant “exercised dominion or control over the [handgun] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … .

… [D]efendant’s contemporaneous text messages did not evince defendant’s consciousness of guilt and, in any event, “mere knowledge of the presence of the handgun would not establish constructive possession” … . Further, although evidence that defendant’s DNA profile matched that of the major contributor to DNA found on the handgun and that other individuals in the apartment were excluded as contributors thereto would support an inference that defendant physically possessed the gun at some point in time … , we conclude that it was not sufficient to support an inference that defendant had constructive possession of the weapon at the time that it was discovered … . People v King, 2022 NY Slip Op 03606, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Here DNA evidence suggested the defendant possessed the firearm at some point. But defendant’s presence as a guest  in the room where the firearm was found was not sufficient evidence of constructive possession of the firearm. Conviction reversed.

 

,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME WHEN THEY BLOCKED DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH THE POLICE VEHICLE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE; PLEA VACATED AND SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s plea and granting defendant’s suppression motion, determined the police did not have probable cause to seize defendant’s vehicle by blocking its exit with the police vehicle:

Police officer testimony at the suppression hearing established that, at the time the officers stopped their vehicle in front of defendant’s vehicle, they had observed defendant’s presence in a vehicle at 1:00 p.m. in the parking lot of an apartment complex known for drug activity and where officers believed defendant did not reside, and they were aware that defendant had a history of drug-related convictions. Such evidence does not provide a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . People v King, 2022 NY Slip Op 03595, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Blocking defendant’s vehicle with a police vehicle is a seizure which requires probable cause to believe defendant has committed or is committing a crime.

​

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH, UNDER PARTNERSHIP LAW, INVOLVES PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT REAL PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF HAD NO INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE USED AS AN INN OPERATED AS A JOINT VENTURE; THERFORE THE LIS PENDENS FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no relationship between plaintiff’s action seeking the assets of a joint venture and the ownership of the real property associated with the joint venture (to be used as an inn). Therefore defendants’ motion to cancel the lis pendens should have been granted:

“A notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property” (CPLR 6501). Because the provisional remedy of a notice of pendency is an ” ‘extraordinary privilege’ ” … , the Court of Appeals has held that to be entitled to that remedy, there must be a “direct relationship” between the relief sought in the complaint and the title to or possession of the disputed property … . In making that determination, a court must use “a narrow interpretation,” and its “analysis is to be limited to the pleading’s face” … . …

Supreme Court erred in denying their motion insofar as it sought to cancel the notice of pendency because there was no direct relationship between title to or possession of the property and the relief sought by plaintiff. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Reviewing the complaint on its face, we conclude that plaintiff seeks merely to enforce her purported 50% share in the joint venture and does not assert an interest in the property itself. Indeed, the complaint alleges that title to the property was, at all relevant times, held by Properties LLC, of which plaintiff was not a member. It is well settled that ” ‘the legal consequences of a joint venture are equivalent to those of a partnership’ ” … , and thus a joint venturer’s interest in a joint venture constitutes an interest in only personal property, not real property, thereby precluding recourse to a notice of pendency … . Renfro v Herrald, 2022 NY Slip Op 03593, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Partnership law applies to joint ventures. Here the joint venture was the operation of an inn. Plaintiff sought the assets of the joint venture, which involves only personal property, not real property. Plaintiff had no interest in the real property (the inn). Therefore the lis pendens filed by the plaintiff should have been cancelled.

 

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