You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant does not own the note underlying the mortgage and therefore has no right to foreclose. The Fourth Department noted that an attorney’s failure to appear at a full briefed motion argument does not constitute a default:

… [D]efendant lacks noteholder standing because the promissory note upon which defendant relies is neither endorsed in blank nor specially endorsed to defendant … . … [E]ven had the note been endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to defendant, defendant’s admitted failure to physically possess the original note would independently preclude it from foreclosing as a noteholder … . …

Nor does defendant have assignee standing. The affidavits submitted on defendant’s behalf do not aver that the subject note was ever assigned to defendant … . …

… [A]n action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15 is a proper procedural vehicle for determining defendant’s standing to foreclose (see RPAPL 1501 [1], [5] … ). Hummel v Cilici, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01690, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: An attorney’s failure to appear at a fully briefed motion argument is not a default.

Practice Point: A party who never physically possessed the note underlying the mortgage does not have standing to foreclose.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, ASSESSED 12 POINTS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY; DEFENDANT ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, without prior notice to the defendant, assessed 12 points for failure to accept responsibility in this SORA risk level proceeding. The Fourth Department noted defendant pled guilty to statutory rape. Although defendant stated he thought the 16-year-old victim was 18, the guilty plea was an adequate acceptance of responsibility:

… [I]t is well established that ” ‘[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment’ ” … . As a result, “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond” … . …

… [T]he court erred in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 12, for failure to accept responsibility, given that he pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt … . …

… [D]efendant was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to argue against the override [recommended by the board] or in favor of a downward departure … . People v Ritchie, 2022 NY Slip Op 01635, Fourth Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: In a SORA risk assessment proceeding, the judge cannot, sua sponte, without notice to the defendant, assess points in a category not recommended by the board.

Practice Point: In a SORA risk assessment proceeding, where a defendant has pled guilty, an assessment of 12 points for failure to accept responsibility is not warranted.

 

,

THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA AND FURTIVE MOVEMENTS INSIDE THE VEHICLE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE BY BLOCKING IT WITH THE POLICE CAR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the police did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion” to justify the seizure of defendant’s vehicle by blocking it with the police car:

… [T]he police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure of the vehicle, and therefore County Court erred in refusing to suppress both the physical property seized from defendant and the vehicle, as well as inculpatory statements made by defendant during booking following his arrest. … [W]e conclude that the police officers effectively seized defendant’s vehicle when they parked their patrol vehicle in such a manner that, for all practical purposes, prevented defendant from driving his vehicle away … . Furthermore, we conclude that the People did not have “reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime” to justify their seizure of the vehicle inasmuch as the seizure was based only on defendant’s presence in a vehicle parked in a high crime area, and on the police officers’ observation of furtive movements inside the vehicle … . People v Jennings, 2022 NY Slip Op 00755, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH AMOUNTED TO A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE WERE NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering the consecutive sentences to run concurrently, determined a de facto life sentence without parole was not warranted:

Defendant’s conviction stems from his conduct in firing a shotgun at police officers while inside his girlfriend’s home and not allowing the girlfriend’s daughter to leave the home. * * *

… [T]he sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Although defendant’s crimes were undoubtedly serious and could easily have resulted in death or injury to the officers, no one was injured or killed during the shootout. We conclude that the de facto life sentence without parole is not warranted here. We therefore modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by directing that the sentences on the counts of attempted aggravated murder shall run concurrently with each other … . People v Youngblood, 2022 NY Slip Op 00751, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

,

COUNTY COURT COULD NOT CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE WITHOUT FORMALLY RESENTENCING THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating the sentence on one count of the indictment, determined County Court should not have corrected a sentencing mistake without formally resentencing the defendant:

… [T]he sentence originally imposed on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was illegal and the court erred in attempting to correct it without formally resentencing defendant at a proceeding at which he was present or securing defendant’s waiver of the right to be present at such a proceeding … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed on count two of the indictment, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing on that count, at which time defendant must be permitted to appear. People v Abergut, 2022 NY Slip Op 00791, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

,

THE SEARCH OF DEFEFNDANT’S VEHICLE BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS NOT COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO AN ILLEGAL FRISK BY A POLICE OFFICER WHICH REVEALED THE CAR KEYS; COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s denial of a suppression motion and dismissing the indictment, determined the search of defendant parolee’s vehicle after an illegal frisk revealed the keys was not justified. Parole officers accompanied a police investigator to a health facility where defendant was known to be as part of a police, not a parole, investigation. The illegal frisk occurred when defendant left the health facility and before the parole officers learned defendant had driven there in violation of his parole terms. Therefore the search of defendant’s vehicle could not be justified as a distinct and completely unrelated “parole” investigation:

The testimony further establishes that the parole officers’ suspicion of a parole violation and their investigation thereof arose only after defendant’s parole officer requested that the police investigator hand over the fruit of the unlawful search and seizure, i.e., the keys, and the police investigator left the scene. The parole officers began their investigation—pressing the fob, questioning defendant, waiting for the purported owner of the vehicle to emerge from the building, and viewing surveillance footage—as a direct result of the unlawful seizure of the keys from defendant’s person. Indeed, defendant’s parole officer did not learn of defendant’s possible connection to the vehicle until he pressed the fob, which activated the lights of the vehicle. Inasmuch as the investigation by the parole officers was precipitated by the police investigator’s unlawful seizure of the keys from defendant, the subsequent discovery of the contraband in the vehicle was not “based solely on information obtained prior to and independent of the illegal [search and seizure]” … . Thus, the court’s determination that the parole officers’ investigation was independent of the unlawful seizure of the keys is not supported by the record. People v Smith, 2022 NY Slip Op 00790, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE; IN THIS MURDER CASE IN WHICH THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) DEFENSE WAS RAISED, DEFENDANT’S MILITARY SERVICE RECORDS, SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY RECORDS AND PTSD DIAGNOSIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defendant presented an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense in this murder case. But the defense consisted only of his and his girlfriend’s testimony. Defense counsel did not request defendant’s Social Security disability records which showed a post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSD) diagnosis related to three tours of duty in Iraq and did not consult an expert about defendant’s PTSD:

Defense counsel testified at the CPL article 440 hearing that, in preparing for trial, she requested and received defendant’s military records, which indicated that defendant had been diagnosed with PTSD, but she did not request or review records relating to defendant’s Social Security disability benefits, even though defendant informed her that he received such benefits. She also accompanied defendant to an interview conducted by the People’s expert, who concluded that defendant was not “suffering from active PTSD symptoms during the shooting,” but she did not seek an independent expert opinion. Rather than introducing expert or medical evidence, defense counsel attempted to establish an EED defense through the testimony of defendant and his girlfriend. Although defense counsel did not clearly recall the details of the case, and her file had been destroyed, she thought that she might have opted not to introduce defendant’s military records at trial because she was uncertain how to lay a foundation for their admissibility.

We conclude on this record that defendant met his burden of establishing that he received less than meaningful representation. People v Jackson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00785, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, ,

MANSLAUGHTER FIRST DEGREE IS NOT AN “ARMED FELONY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 720.10; COUNTY COURT WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to County Court, determined County Court was required to decide whether defendant in this Manslaughter First Degree case should be afforded youthful offender status:

… [W]e note that defendant’s “waiver of his right to appeal was invalid . . . and, in any event, [would] not bar his contention that [County] Court failed to properly consider youthful offender treatment” … . On the merits, … the court erred in determining that he was ineligible for youthful offender status. … [M]anslaughter in the first degree is not an “armed felony” for purposes of CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) … . Thus, defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender status did not turn … on the existence of a statutory mitigating factor enumerated in CPL 720.10 (3) … . Inasmuch as defendant is otherwise eligible for youthful offender status on this conviction (see CPL 720.10 [1], [2]), the court was obligated to make a discretionary youthful offender determination before imposing sentence (see CPL 720.20 [1] … ). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status … . People v Graham, 2022 NY Slip Op 00784, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant prime contractor, Kilian, did not supervise or control plaintiff’s work and therefore was not liable on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action stemming from plaintiff’s fall down an open stairway at a house under construction. The Fourth Department noted the difference between a general contractor and a prime contractor. Here, Kilian (the prime contractor) demonstrated he did not exercise supervision or control over plaintiff’s work. However, Kilian did exercise some control over work-site safety and therefore may be liable under Labor Law 200 for the dangerous condition (open stairwell):

“A general contractor will be held liable under [Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6)] if it was responsible for coordinating and supervising the entire construction project and was invested with a concomitant power to enforce safety standards and to hire responsible contractors” … . Here, Collins, not Kilian, hired plaintiff’s employer to perform work on the project, and Kilian established through the documentary evidence and deposition testimony that he exercised no control or supervision over plaintiff’s work and had no authority to enforce safety standards against plaintiff … . Thus, Kilian established as a matter of law that he was not a general contractor subject to liability pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240 (1) or 241 (6), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

… [T]o the extent that the section 200 claim against Kilian is based on the theory that he was negligent with respect to the dangerous condition of the stairwell, we conclude that Kilian failed to establish as a matter of law that he did not have control over the work site or that he lacked actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, i.e., the unguarded, open stairwell … . Clifton v Collins, 2022 NY Slip Op 00780, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE POSTING OF AN UNDERTAKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although the preliminary injunction in this breach of contract action was properly imposed, Supreme Court should have provided for an undertaking:

… [T]he court erred in granting the preliminary injunction without providing for an undertaking. With certain exceptions that are not applicable here, prior to the court granting a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court (see CPLR 6312 [b] … ), and that requirement may not be waived … . TDA, LLC v Lacey, 2022 NY Slip Op 00779. Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

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