You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT HOLE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE PLYWOOD WHICH WAS COVERING THE HOLE; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff fell through a skylight hole while attempting to remove plywood which was covering the hole:

Plaintiff submitted his own deposition testimony, in which he testified that, at the time of his injury, he was removing the plywood covering of the skylight hole as part of his work of preparing to install the final roofing. Plaintiff further testified that, upon removing the plywood, he fell through the skylight hole, and he was given no safety device to protect him from falling. Even assuming, arguendo, that the plywood cover constituted a safety device … , we note that “the availability of a particular safety device will not shield an owner or general contractor from absolute liability if the device alone is not sufficient to provide safety without the use of additional precautionary devices or measures” … . While the plywood cover “may have provided proper protection when it was in place over the opening, . . . once it was removed plaintiff was exposed to an elevation-related risk which required additional precautionary measures or devices” … . Tanksley v LCO Bldg. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00567, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined an employment contract between plaintiff and defendant, which included a covenant not to compete, was not entwined with the separate sales agreement in which defendant promised to pay $200,000 for plaintiff’s business. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the sales contract because defendant defaulted after making the first payment:

“Generally, breach of a related contract will not in the ordinary course defeat summary judgment on [a promissory] note[]” … . Nonetheless, that “rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined” and inseparable … . Whether two agreements are inextricably intertwined is a question of law for the court to decide because it involves a matter of contract interpretation … .

Here, the sales contract and employment agreement are not inextricably intertwined such that plaintiff’s purported breach of the noncompetition covenants in the latter constitute a defense to defendant’s default on the promissory note … . Saulsbury v Durfee, 2022 NY Slip Op 00566, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant demonstrated it did not create a dangerous condition in the street by a special use. Plaintiff alleged defendant created the dangerous condition by storing heavy materials in the street. Plaintiff alleged a steel beam fell on his foot from a forklift when the forklift struck a defect in the road (Simmons Avenue):

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner or lessee of abutting property, unless the landowner or lessee has either affirmatively created the dangerous condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur through a special use, or violated a statute or ordinance expressly imposing liability on the landowner or lessee for a failure to maintain the abutting street” … . Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing, as relevant here, that “[it] neither owned nor made special use of [Simmons Avenue], and that [it] had no connection to the condition” that caused the accident … .

From the dissent:

In our view, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not make special use of Simmons Avenue or affirmatively create the defective condition on Simmons Avenue that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries. Beck v City of Niagara Falls, 2022 NY Slip Op 00563, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of “refusing a breath test,” explained that it is not a cognizable offense. The court noted that it was obligated to correct this fundamental error which cannot be waived, even though the issue was not briefed on appeal:

… [T]he purported traffic infraction to which defendant pleaded guilty under count two of the indictment—refusing the breath test mandated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) (b)—is not a cognizable offense for which a person may be charged or convicted in a criminal court … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00562, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

Same issue in People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 00568, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FATHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent-father had presented sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant a hearing on the best interests of the child:

Where … ” ‘a respondent moves to dismiss a modification proceeding at the conclusion of the petitioner’s proof, the court must accept as true the petitioner’s proof and afford the petitioner every favorable inference that reasonably could be drawn therefrom’ ” … . Here, the father testified that, at the time the order of custody and visitation was entered into and for a short time thereafter, the mother and the father were communicating effectively and, in addition to scheduled visitation, were able to agree to further overnight and weekend visitation. That arrangement subsequently changed, however, and the father could not get the mother to agree to any visitation time apart from his scheduled day. The father further testified that communication with the mother regarding additional visitation time essentially ended after he moved to a new home 30 miles away. Taking the father’s testimony as true and considering the circumstances of the father’s move and the development of “extreme acrimony between the parties,” we conclude that the father met his burden of showing a change in circumstances warranting an inquiry into the best interests of the child … . Matter of Cooley v Roloson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00534, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that a juror gave a non-verbal assurance that he would not hold it against the defendant if he did not testify. The dissent argued the record did not clearly indicate which jurors gave the non-verbal assurance:

We disagree with the dissent that “[t]here is no indication in the record that prospective juror number 15 was one of the two prospective jurors who were acknowledged by the court as having given some form of nonverbal assurance that they could follow its instructions.” Only three prospective jurors were questioned by defense counsel regarding their desire to hear from defendant. In response to the court’s follow-up questions, one prospective juror unequivocally indicated that he could not follow the court’s instructions regarding defendant’s failure to testify, and the court went on to ask, “[o]kay, anyone else? Can you follow that instruction whether you believe in it or not? I mean, obviously we talked about this. You both can? Okay. All right, thanks” … . Having already spoken to one of the three prospective jurors, it is clear that the court was addressing the remaining two prospective jurors who had expressed a desire to hear from defendant—including prospective juror number 15. Furthermore, in denying defense counsel’s for-cause challenge, the court stated on the record that both prospective juror number 15 and prospective juror number 16 “said they could follow [its] instructions. I asked them exactly on that . . . but they said no, they could follow it.”

From the dissent:

There is no indication in the record that prospective juror number 15 was one of the two prospective jurors who were acknowledged by the court as having given some form of a nonverbal assurance that they could follow its instruction, and the nature of the nonverbal assurance provided by those prospective jurors is not identified in the record. People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 07406, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNTING WAS NOT TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for an accounting of a trust should not have been limited to the six years before the filing of the complaint. Although the trustee did not provide a requested accounting. the trustee did not openly repudiate his fiduciary duties, so the six-year statute of limitations was never triggered:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action seeking an accounting is six years (see CPLR 213 [1] … ). It is well settled that the limitations period begins to run only when ” ‘the trustee openly repudiates his [or her] fiduciary obligations’ ” and ” ‘a mere lapse of time is insufficient without proof of an open repudiation’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue of open repudiation” … . Here, defendants “failed to sustain their burden of establishing that [defendant] had openly repudiated [his] fiduciary obligations to [plaintiffs] so as to start the statute of limitations clock” … . Although defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with an accounting, he never outright refused to do so. Further, defendant continued to conduct his duties as trustee by handling the taxes and expenses for the trust, and making the necessary disbursements to plaintiffs as beneficiaries. Thus, the cause of action for an accounting had not accrued at the time plaintiffs commenced this action. Massey-Hughes v Massey, 2021 NY Slip Op 07405, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the warrantless search of defendant’s residence by an evidence technician was not justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. A woman called 911 and reported she had found her roommate unconscious in the residence. When the evidence technician arrived she was told the roommate was dead. The technician then went through the residence taking pictures. She discovered what appeared to be illegal drugs. A search warrant was issued and drugs and a handgun were seized:

The court held that the initial search of the residence by the evidence technician was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search in the presence of three elements: ” ‘(1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched’ ” … . …

Prior to engaging in her initial search, … the evidence technician had observed the body in the bathroom, and her suppression hearing testimony did not include any observation suggesting that a crime had occurred, much less that an assailant was still in the home or that there was an ongoing risk of harm … . … [N]othing in the 911 call or in the testimony of the officers who initially arrived at the residence suggested that the woman had been the victim of an attack … . … [T]he evidence technician lacked a ” ‘reasonable basis, approximating probable cause’ ” to associate any emergency that might have once existed, i.e., an unresponsive woman lying in the bathroom, to the search of the bedrooms of the residence … . People v Hidalgo-Hernandez, 2021 NY Slip Op 07404, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ASSAULT SECOND STATUTE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s assault second conviction, determined the jury’s conclusion that the victim suffered “serious injury” was against the weight of the evidence:

Although the victim testified that he sustained a skull fracture … , the People also introduced expert medical testimony establishing that he did not have a skull fracture. In addition, although the victim testified to ongoing memory issues, there is evidence in the record establishing that he had several other concussions that could also have caused those issues, including one that occurred when he was struck by a metal bat only a few months after this incident. Consequently, we cannot conclude that “the jury was justified in finding . . . defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” … . People v Defio, 2021 NY Slip Op 07400, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S SON SUFFERED A BROKEN JAW IN A COLLISION WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A GYM-CLASS TOUCH FOOTBALL GAME; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER SUCH A COLLISION WAS FORESEEABLE AND WHETHER INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action shiould not have been granted. Plaintiff’s son, a high school freshman, suffered a broken jaw during a touch football game during gym class when a taller student collided with him. The students were to call their own penalties and, according to plaintiff’s son, there were four games going on at once:

The testimony of the physical education teacher raised an issue of fact with respect to notice inasmuch as it established that, on the day before the collision, there was a “very similar” incident involving a collision between two boys during a touch football game in physical education class, resulting in injury. Nonetheless, the students in his game were, according to the testimony of plaintiff’s son, expected to call their own penalties. In addition, although the substitute teacher who was supervising the class that day testified that the class was divided into three separate games and that he was able to supervise them all simultaneously, plaintiff’s son further testified that the class was divided into four games, and the substitute teacher acknowledged that he did not see the collision that caused the injury to plaintiff’s son.

… Plaintiff’s son testified that he believed the collision was intentional because he “was nowhere near the ball handler” at the time he was hit from behind and “the only way” that the other student, who was six inches taller, could have hit plaintiff’s son’s jaw was if he had lowered his shoulder. Thus, considering that testimony together with the testimony that the students were expected to call their own penalties, we conclude that there exists a question of fact whether this was a “foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence” … . Ismahan A. v Williamsville Bd. of Educ., 2021 NY Slip Op 07396, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

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