You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimants’ application to file a late notice of claim against the county in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Claimants alleged ice and snow had been allowed to accumulate on the road causing the driver to lose control and strike a tree. Claimants’ eight-year-old son was injured. The Fourth Department, in a comprehensive discussion, went through each “late-notice-of-claim” factor and found only one (county not prejudiced by the delay) favored the claimants:

… [O]f all the relevant circumstances evaluated—infancy, reasonable excuse, actual knowledge, and substantial prejudice—only one, lack of substantial prejudice, favored granting claimants’ application. Despite the well-settled principle that “actual knowledge of the claim is the factor that is accorded ‘great weight’ in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim” … and instead “weigh[ed] heavily” the lack of substantial prejudice, even though claimants’ showing in that regard, while adequate, was not particularly strong. Under these circumstances—which include the nearly 22-month period between the accident and claimants’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the improper weighing of the substantial prejudice factor at the expense of the actual knowledge factor, and claimants’ failure to demonstrate a nexus between the son’s infancy and the delay or to otherwise proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay—we conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting that part of the application seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim on the County … . Matter of Antoinette C. v County of Erie, 2022 NY Slip Op 00776, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, , ,

THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN A CLOSED SESSION BEFORE DECIDING NOT TO RENEW PLAINTIFF FOOTBALL COACH’S EMPLOYMENT; THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW FOR LEGAL ADVICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff high school football coach was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging the school board violated the Open Meetings Law by deciding not to renew plaintiff’s employment after a closed meeting. The Open Meetings Law did not apply to the board’s closed-door consultation with its attorney:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a] … ). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person” (§ 105 [1] [f]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). However, section 108 (3) clarifies that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” Because “communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in [a] determination . . . , are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … .

There is no dispute that, during the closed session … , the Board and the District superintendent met with the District’s counsel seeking legal advice “regarding the [p]laintiff’s legal employment status, employment rights, [and] the process for appointing school employees.” We thus agree with defendants that the attorney-client exemption applies and that the court erred in determining that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law … . Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00772, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

,

THE STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL SEXUAL URGES, AS OPPOSED HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL URGES; THEREFORE CONFINEMENT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner did not demonstrate defendant was unable to control his sexual urges, as opposed to having difficulty controlling them. Therefore confinement of the defendant was not an appropriate remedy:

… [A] ” ‘[d]angerous sex offender requiring confinement’ ” is a sex offender “suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that [he or she] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [e]). The statutory scheme “clearly envisages a distinction between sex offenders who have difficulty controlling their sexual conduct and those who are unable to control it. The former are to be supervised and treated as ‘outpatients’ and only the latter may be confined” … . In other words, only where the offender is “presently ‘unable’ to control his [or her] sexual conduct” may he or she be confined under section 10.03 (e) … .

… [P]etitioner failed to meet its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is “presently ‘unable’ to control his sexual conduct” and is thus a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record does not establish that respondent touched an unknown adult female without her knowledge on an unknown date; rather, the record reflects only the possibility that such an act might have taken place. The balance of respondent’s alleged SIST [strict and intensive supervision and treatment] violations are technical missteps that do not evince an ” ‘inability’ ” to control sexual misconduct … . … [T]he report of petitioner’s expert failed to meaningfully address respondent’s successful integration into the community while on SIST. At most, petitioner established that respondent “was struggling with his sexual urges, not that he was unable to control himself” … , and that is legally insufficient to justify confinement under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (e) … . Matter of State of New York v Scott M., 2022 NY Slip Op 00595, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FINE WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the imposition of a fine was not part of the plea agreement and vacated that part of the sentence:

Defendant’s … contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered is actually a contention that County Court erred in imposing a $1,000 fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to object to the imposition of the fine or by moving to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see id.), we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] …). … [T]he court improperly enhanced defendant’s sentence by imposing “a fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement” … . … [W]e conclude that it is “appropriate to vacate the provision of the defendant’s sentence imposing a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty” … . People v Wilson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00593, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18 IN 1996, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED A LEVEL ONE, NOT LEVEL TWO, RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant, who was convicted of statutory rape (no force) in 1996, should have classified as a level one risk, not level two:

Defendant appeals from an order classifying him as a level two sex offender stemming from his 1996 conviction in Virginia for the statutory rape of a 14-year-old female “without the use of force.” Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the offense, which the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders characterized as an “isolated incident.” Defendant successfully completed both sex offender treatment and substance abuse treatment, and he has not been convicted of any other sex crime. Under these circumstances, we agree with defendant, in the exercise of our own discretion, that his presumptive level two classification overestimates his “dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . We therefore modify the order by determining that defendant is a level one risk … . People v Stevens, 2022 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREBY VITIATED THE PURPOSE SERVED BY JUDICIAL OPINIONS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT VACATED THE JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the judgment, determined the judge erred by adopting a proposed decision drafted by counsel as the final determination of the case:

… [T]he court erred in adopting, almost verbatim, the proposed decision drafted by petitioners’ counsel as the final determination in this case … . “When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [respondent] CME could or should have objected to the court’s error, we would exercise our discretion to correct that error notwithstanding CME’s failure to object. We therefore vacate the judgment in its entirety and remit the matter to Supreme Court for consideration and determination of any pending issue or motion. Bruckel v Town of Conesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 00580, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ OPINIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF DECEDENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS, RENDERING THE OPINIONS SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice, Public Health Law action should not have been granted. The defendant’s experts’ opinions were not supported by the submission of decedent’s medical records:

… [D]efendant’s experts proffered opinions about decedent’s care at the nursing home facility that were not based on facts in the record because defendant failed to submit any of decedent’s medical records, certified or otherwise, to support those opinions. Additionally, those opinions were not based on facts personally known to the experts. Thus, the experts’ affidavits are ” ‘speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation’ ” … . Ritts v Gowanda Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 00578, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

PLAINTIFF WAS IN A TRENCH WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY THE BUCKET OF AN EXCAVATOR WHICH WAS ON THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH ABOVE HIM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE USUAL AND ORDINARY DANGERS OF A CONSTRUCTION SITE AS OPPOSED TO A RISK CONTEMPLATED BY THE LABOR LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was in a trench when he was struck by the bucket of an excavator which was on the edge of the trench above him:

Plaintiffs’ own submissions created a triable issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred … , specifically whether plaintiff was injured due to a risk contemplated by the statute or, alternatively, by ” ‘the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site’ ” … . …

… [T]he court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion with respect to liability on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it is premised upon alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (c) and 23-9.5 (a). The issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred precludes a determination as a matter of law whether either of those regulations were violated … . Malvestuto v Town of Lancaster, 2022 NY Slip Op 00577, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

BECAUSE OF UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE, DEFENDANT’S MICHIGAN CONVICTION WAS DEEMED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE” EVEN THOUGH THE SAME CONDUCT IN NEW YORK WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE;” STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the result, while admittedly unfair, is required by unambiguous statutory language. For predicate felony purposes, a Michigan conviction was deemed a “sexually violent offense,” even though the same conduct would not constitute a “sexually violent offense” if committed in New York:

A ” ‘[s]exually violent offender’ means a sex offender who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense” (Correction Law § 168-a [7] [b]). A ” ‘[s]exually violent offense,’ ” among other things, is “a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any [New York] felony [enumerated in section 168-a (3) (a)] or conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (§ 168-a [3] [b] [emphasis added]). It is undisputed that defendant was convicted of a felony in Michigan “for which [he] is required to register as a sex offender in [that] jurisdiction” (id.). Defendant’s Michigan conviction thus constitutes a ” ‘[s]exually violent offense’ ” as defined by the second of the two disjunctive clauses that comprise section 168-a (3) (b). It follows that defendant was properly designated a sexually violent offender, even though he would not qualify as such had he committed the same conduct in New York … . People v Talluto, 2022 NY Slip Op 00575, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant may have pled guilty and accepted a 16-year sentence in Monroe County because he was already serving a 14-24 year sentence for another offense in Ontario County. Subsequently, on appeal, the Fourth Department reduced the Ontario County sentence to four years:

“The critical question is whether the removal or reduction of the preexisting sentence nullified a benefit that was expressly promised and was a material inducement to the guilty plea” … . Here, when defendant pleaded guilty in Monroe County, the court expressly informed him that the aggregate 16-year term of imprisonment would run concurrently with the aggregate 14-to-24-year term already imposed in Ontario County, and thus the plea would result in no or relatively little additional prison time … . Once the Ontario County sentence was reduced as a result of our determination on the prior appeal to a term of four years, defendant lost the benefit previously conferred by the concurrent nature of the Monroe County plea, and “we cannot say defendant would have accepted the plea bargain . . . had it not been for his [14-to-24]-year sentence in the [Ontario County] case, now reduced to [four years]” … . People v Ringrose, 2022 NY Slip Op 00569, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

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