You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY FEES FOR CASES RETAINED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LEAVES THE FIRM, DID NOT VIOLATE ETHICS RULES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Professional Employee Agreement (Agreement), which provided for sharing contingency fees for cases retained by an attorney leaving the firm, did not violate ethics rules and should have been enforced:

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 1.5 (g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) inasmuch as that rule “does not prohibit payment to a lawyer formerly associated in a law firm pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.5 [h] … ) . Here, the Agreement at issue is not a fee-splitting agreement under Rule 1.5 (g) but, rather, an employment or separation agreement under Rule 1.5 (h). Such employment or separation agreements “should be construed, wherever possible, in favor of [their] legality” … and where, as here, they are clear and unambiguous on their face, they must be ” ‘enforced according to the plain meaning of [their] terms’ ” … .

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 5.6 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0 … ). Although the Agreement did have some financial disincentives for respondents to continue working on the cases that were transferred from petitioner, “agreements involving financial disincentives are not per se illegal”  … [W]e conclude that the terms of the Agreement relating to the division of contingency fee awards did not have the effect of “improperly deter[ring] competition” … . Matter of Mattar v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 06477, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ARGUABLY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A POTENTIALLY ACTIONABLE DELAY IN TREATMENT, THE AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED ONLY CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ASSERTIONS THAT EARLIER DETECTION AND TREATMENT WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME (PROXIMATE CAUSE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a strong dissent, determined the expert affidavit submitted by plaintiff was conclusory on the issue of proximate cause and therefore could not overcome defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Karen S. Simko (plaintiff) suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and alleged defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat the condition:

… [P]laintiffs’ theory of causation is predicated on the allegation that defendants’ failure or delay in diagnosing plaintiff’s GBS “diminished [her] chance of a better outcome” … . Nothing in our decision herein calls into question the viability of such a theory. The Court of Appeals, however, has instructed that when an expert “states his [or her] conclusion unencumbered by any trace of facts or data, [the] testimony should be given no probative force whatsoever” … , and, in this case, … the opinion of plaintiffs’ expert that treatment should have been started sooner was contrary to what the expert agreed was appropriate. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs’ expert offered only conclusory and speculative assertions that earlier detection and treatment would have produced a different outcome … .

From the dissent:

… [T]his appeal implicates the “loss of chance” theory of proximate causation that applies in delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice actions where the allegations are predicated on an “omission” theory of negligence … . In such cases, proximate cause is not analyzed under the ordinary “substantial factor” approach … , but rather according to whether the alleged delay in diagnosis diminished the plaintiff’s “chance of a better outcome or increased the injury” … . Although I have expressed concern “that a loss of chance concept reduces a plaintiff’s burden of proof on the element of proximate cause” … this Court has nonetheless adopted that causation standard in this type of medical malpractice action. Simko v Rochester Gen. Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06470, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

A CHALLENGE TO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A GUILTY PLEA SURVIVES A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined (1) a challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty survives a valid waiver of appeal, and (2) a hearing should have been held on defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea:

Because defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of her plea would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we need not address the validity of that waiver … . We agree with defendant that County Court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea without a hearing because the record—specifically, defense counsel’s affidavit swearing that defendant’s plea was coerced—”raises a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to appoint new defense counsel and to rule on defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea following an evidentiary hearing. People v Gumpton, 2021 NY Slip Op 06519, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

,

ITEMS SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE OVERBROAD SECTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCLUSION OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT WHICH DID NOT SATISFY THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI TEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a portion of the search warrant was overbroad and remitted the case for a ruling on what evidence, if any, should be suppressed because it was seized based on the overbroad language. The Fourth Department also determined information provided by an anonymous informant, which was included in the search warrant application, did not satisfy the “Aguilar-Spinelli” test, but that the remaining information in the application provided probable cause. The search warrant was seeking stolen property alleged to have been located in defendant’s residence:

… [I]nsofar as the search warrant application was based on information provided by an anonymous informant, that information was insufficient to establish probable cause. The information in the application concerning the informant failed to “satisf[y] the two-part Aguilar-Spinelli test requiring a showing that the informant is reliable and has a basis of knowledge for the information imparted” … . Nevertheless, we conclude that the remaining information in the warrant application provided probable cause for the warrant … . …

… [P]art of the warrant is overbroad. “The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no warrants shall issue except those ‘particularly describing the place to be searched, and the . . . things to be seized’ (US Const 4th Amend). To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant’s directive must be ‘specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer’ ” … . Here, the warrant permitted the Troopers to search for, inter alia, “personal papers, . . . alcohol, . . . safes, . . . any communication and computers that are related to criminal activity, any . . . telephone records, cell phones that [may] contain evidence of a crime or illegal activity and any associated documentation related to any criminal activity.” Those parts of the warrant were overbroad and any evidence seized pursuant to them should have been suppressed … . People v Herron, 2021 NY Slip Op 06512, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

THE CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE OFFENSES DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN ONTARIO COUNTY AND DID NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR EFFECT ON ONTARIO COUNTY; THEREFORE THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the custodial interference offenses did not have a “particular effect” in Ontario County, therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over them:

… [I]t is undisputed that all elements of the crime of custodial interference in the first degree were committed outside of Ontario County, the People contend that Ontario County Court could exercise jurisdiction under the ” ‘injured forum’ ” provisions of CPL 20.40 (2) (c) … . That statute provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person may be convicted in an appropriate criminal court of a particular county, of an offense of which the criminal courts of this state have jurisdiction pursuant to section 20.20, . . . when: . . . [e]ven though none of the conduct constituting such offense may have occurred within such county: . . . [s]uch conduct had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon such county or a political subdivision or part thereof, and was performed with intent that it would, or with knowledge that it was likely to, have such particular effect therein” … . * * *

… [T]he conduct alleged in the counts of the indictment charging defendant with custodial interference in the first degree occurred outside Ontario County and did not have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Ontario County. That conduct impacted three people: the children and their mother, none of whom resided in Ontario County, and did not impact the community as a whole … . People v Roth, 2021 NY Slip Op 06257, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT ALLEGING RACIAL BIAS AMONG JURORS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon juror misconduct should not have been denied without a hearing:

… [S]etting aside the verdict “is warranted where a juror had an undisclosed preexisting prejudice that would have resulted in his or her disqualification if it had been revealed during voir dire, such as an undisclosed, pretrial opinion of guilt against the defendant”… .

… [T]he court erred in denying defendant’s motion without a hearing because the sworn allegations in support of the motion, including the affidavits of two jurors, indicated that certain other jurors may have had undisclosed preexisting prejudices against people of defendant’s race that may have affected defendant’s substantial right to an impartial jury and fair trial … . … [A]s early as the evening following the verdict, the two jurors alleged in emails sent directly to the court that, during deliberations, certain other jurors directed racist comments at the defendants and that racial bias had played a role in the verdict. … [T]he detailed affidavits of the two jurors recounting specific instances of racist comments by certain other jurors did, in fact, allege that the verdict was influenced by racial bias against the defendants … . People v Woodard, 2021 NY Slip Op 06256, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff injured his back lifting a metal structure a few inches so roofing material could be applied underneath it. The injury was not related to the failure to provide a safety device to prevent an elevation-related injury:

… “[L]iability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the ‘plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . … [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) ” ‘do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … .

… Although plaintiff’s back injury was “tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [structure] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . … [P]laintiff’s injuries “resulted from a ‘routine workplace risk[]’ of a construction site and not a ‘pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials’ ” … . Branch v 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06248, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

THE DWI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WHICH MUST BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that DWI is an inclusory concurrent count of vehicular manslaughter:

… [T]he DWI counts of which defendant was convicted are inclusory concurrent counts of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree , reconsideration . Thus, those DWI counts must be dismissed as a matter of law … . People v Conklin, 2021 NY Slip Op 06246, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, ,

THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SUPPORTED THE GRANT OF THE ARIA VARIANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE BOARD’S (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) properly granted an area variance and Supreme Court should not have substituted its judgment for the board’s:

The administrative record and the ZBA’s formal return in the CPLR article 78 proceeding establish that the ZBA considered the five statutory factors, including whether the alleged difficulty was self-created … . Thus, we conclude that the ZBA “rendered its determination after considering the appropriate factors and properly weighing the benefit to the [applicants] against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community” if the variance was granted … . We further conclude that the record establishes that the ZBA’s determination had the requisite rational basis … . It was therefore error for the court to substitute its judgment for that of the ZBA, “even if such a contrary determination is itself supported by the record” … . Matter of Gasparino v Town of Brighton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2021 NY Slip Op 06239, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

MOTHER TIMELY REVOKED HER EXTRA-JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF HER CHILD FOR ADOPTION; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAE DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION TO DEEM THE SURRENDER A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother properly revoked her extra-judicial surrender of the child for adoption and Family Court should not have denied mother’s motion to deem the surrender a nullity and should not have conducted a best interests hearing:

… [T]he plain language of Social Services Law § 383-c (6) (a) mandates that a timely revocation shall render the extra-judicial surrender a nullity and that the child shall be returned to the care and custody of the authorized agency, and the statute contains no language providing for a best interests hearing in the event of such a timely revocation … . * * *

… [T]he court here had no statutory basis for refusing to deem the surrender a nullity, denying the birth mother’s motion, and instead conducting a best interests hearing. Matter of Tony S.H. (Katrina F.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06238, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

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