You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

BEFORE GRANTING THE AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DID NOT REFER THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition contesting the area variance granted by the Village of Brockport Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) should not have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The General Municipal Law requires that the ZBA first refer a variance application to the planning board, which was not done. Therefore the ZBA ‘s determination was annulled and the petition reinstated:

… General Municipal Law § 239-m requires that a village zoning body, before taking final action on specified proposed actions, refer such proposed actions to a county planning agency for its recommendation (see § 239-m [2]-[4] …). Use and area variances, if they apply to real property set forth in the statute, are proposed actions for which referral is required … . Nevertheless, a county planning agency may enter into an agreement with a village “to provide that certain proposed actions . . . are of local, rather than inter-community or county-wide concern, and are not subject to referral” under the statute … . * * *

Inasmuch as the agreement does not exempt [the] application for an area variance from the referral requirement … and the ZBA did not refer the application to the county planning agency, the ZBA’s approval of the application is jurisdictionally defective … . Consequently, the statute of limitations did not begin to run upon the filing of the jurisdictionally defective document with the village clerk, and the court thus erred in granting the motion to dismiss the petition as untimely … . Moreover, the ZBA’s failure to refer [the] application for an area variance to the county planning agency under these circumstances renders its approval of the application ” ‘null and void’ ” … . Inasmuch as the ZBA’s approval of the area variance is null and void, the further appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the ZBA for a new determination on [the] application … . … [W]e reverse the judgment, deny the motion, reinstate the petition, grant the petition in part, annul the ZBA’s determination granting the area variance, and remit the matter to the ZBA for a new determination on the application. Matter of Johnson v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Brockport, 2025 NY Slip Op 04326, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: When dealing with local zoning issues, read the applicable statutes and rules carefully. The municipality’s failure to comply with them may provide an opening for judicial action. Here the ZBA’s failure to refer an area variance application to the planning board before granting the application rendered the ZBA determination null and void.​

 

, ,

SHANE, A CO-DEFENDANT WITH HIS PARENTS WITH WHOM HE LIVED, WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM ACCEPTING SERVICE ON BEHALF OF HIS PARENTS DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST; THE ACTION AGAINST THE PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED BASED ON A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support the finding that Shane, who was living with his parents when he was served with process on behalf of his parents, was not a person of suitable age and discretion due to a conflict of interest with his parents. Shane was a co-defendant along with his parents. The parents were granted vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(4) on the ground the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them:

“A person would not be considered a person of suitable age and discretion where their interests in the proceeding were sufficiently adverse to the party for whom they were accepting service” … . Furthermore, “[g]ood faith is implicit in the spirit of the statutory scheme. If a plaintiff knows, or should know, that service according to [CPLR 308 (2)] will not afford notice, then, by definition, it is not reasonably calculated to afford notice, and is constitutionally infirm” … .

… [T]here is no evidence in the record to support a determination that plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of any alleged conflict between Shane and the parent defendants. We cannot conclude that Shane had a conflict of interest with the parent defendants and, therefore, was not a person of suitable age and discretion, merely because he is a codefendant … . Moreover, on the record before us, we note that this is not a case where plaintiff can be charged with any knowledge that service upon Shane with respect to his parents might be deficient … . Thus, based on the evidence adduced at the traverse hearing, we conclude that plaintiff established that Shane was a person of suitable age and discretion for purposes of serving his parents … . Seebald v Spoonley, 2025 NY Slip Op 04324, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: The fact that a person is a co-defendant does not render that person unqualified to accept service on behalf of other defendants. Here the person served, Shane, a co-defendant in the action, accepted service on behalf of his parents with whom he lived. It was not demonstrated at the traverse hearing that Shane had interests sufficiently adverse to those of his parents to render the service on the parents constitutionally infirm. There was no evidence the plaintiff was aware service upon Shane would be deficient with respect to service on the parents.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF IN THIS ASBESTOS-EXPOSURE CASE PROVED GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CAUSATION THROUGH EXPERT TESTIMONY; THE DISSENT ARGUED NEITHER CAUSATION ELEMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming the denial of the defense motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos-exposure case, determined plaintiff, through expert testimony, demonstrated both general and specific causation. The dissent found the causation evidence insufficient:

… [I]t is well established that, in cases involving exposure to asbestos or other toxins, ” ‘an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)’ ” … . ” ‘[I]t is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship, provided that whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation are generally accepted in the scientific community’ ” … . Indeed, “there may be several ways” for an expert to demonstrate causation, but “any method used must be ‘generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community’ ” … .

From the dissent:

I do not believe that Joseph A. Skrzynski (plaintiff) established general causation, i.e., that exposure to chrysotile asbestos as a component of friction products can cause peritoneal mesothelioma, nor did plaintiff meet his burden of proof on specific causation, i.e., that he was exposed to sufficient levels of chrysotile asbestos to cause peritoneal mesothelioma. Thus, in my view, there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial,” and the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence … . Skrzynski v Akebono Brake Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04322, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision and the dissent for insight into the proof requirements for general and specific causation in a toxic torts action. Plaintiff must prove the toxin (asbsestos in this case) is capable of causing the disease (mesothelioma in this case) and the toxin in fact caused plaintiff’s disease.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED MAL ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE DECEDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A BLOOD TRANSFUSION ON THE GROUND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PLED AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION WHEN THE DEFENSE INDICATED IT WAS NOT GOING TO CALL THREE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action after a defense verdict, determined plaintiff’s should not have been precluded from presenting evidence that decedent should have received a blood transfusion in the emergency room on the ground the issue had not been pled and the judge should have given the missing witness jury instruction after the defense indicated it was not going call three defendants:

… [P]laintiff from the outset alleged that the ED [emergency department] defendants failed to act upon complaints, signs, symptoms, and diagnostic testing, and such allegations were neither new nor would have been a surprise to the ED defendants because they had responded during summary judgment motion practice to the allegation that they should have acted upon the drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. …

… [T]he court abused its discretion in failing to give a missing witness charge for defendants Patel, Chan, and Alexander. A trier of fact in a civil proceeding may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a party who fails to testify … . This type of instruction, which is commonly referred to as a missing witness charge, “derives from the commonsense notion that the nonproduction of evidence that would naturally have been produced by an honest and therefore fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor is unfavorable to the party’s cause” … . In seeking use of this charge, “[t]he burden, in the first instance, is upon the party seeking the charge to promptly notify the court that there is an uncalled witness believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case, that such witness can be expected to testify favorably to the opposing party and that such party has failed to call [the witness] to testify” … . Once the foregoing is established, the burden shifts to the party opposing the charge “to account for the witness'[s] absence or otherwise demonstrate that the charge would not be appropriate” … . The opposing party’s burden can be met by demonstrating, inter alia, that “the testimony would be cumulative to other evidence” … . Heinrich v Serens, 2025 NY Slip Op 04318, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when the court should give the missing witness jury instruction. Here in the med mal case the defense notification that it was not going to call three defendants as witnesses justified plaintiff’s request for the instruction. Under the facts, the request should have been granted.​

 

,

THE MAJORITY HELD THAT DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY JUSTIFYING PURSUIT IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE DISSENT ARGUED FLIGHT ALONE DURING A LEVEL TWO ENCOUNTER DOES NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, after a detailed analysis of the De Bour criteria for a street stop, determined the initial encounter with defendant was lawful, the request for consent to frisk the defendant was lawful, and defendant’s flight provided reasonable suspicion of criminality justifying pursuit. The dissent agued the information available to the police never provided more than a level two right to inquire:

From the dissent:

I respectfully dissent inasmuch as I conclude that the pursuit of defendant was unlawful. At the time the two officers in question approached defendant, they mistakenly believed that they could properly detain defendant. The information they had before them, a general description of a suspect, gave them, as the majority agrees, a level two right to inquire … . In other words, defendant, at the time the officers approached him, had the right to be let alone.

The majority concludes that the degree of suspicion ripened from founded suspicion of criminality to reasonable suspicion upon defendant’s flight, thereby justifying the officers’ pursuit. ” ‘Flight alone, however, or even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information, is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry’ ” … . A level two founded suspicion of criminality plus flight cannot equate to level three reasonable suspicion or else a defendant’s right to be let alone during a level two encounter will be rendered utterly meaningless. In my view, the majority ignores binding New York jurisprudence on this point in favor of a standard that erodes the rights that individuals maintain in a level two encounter. As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated, “an individual’s flight from a level one or two police encounter, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to pursue them” … , and defendant, during the lawful level two encounter, and even upon the officers’ requests and his momentary acquiescence, retained his “right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 04317, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision and the dissent for insight into when a defendant’s flight during a level two street stop will justify police pursuit.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT IN HIS BACKYARD AND AT THE HOSPITAL WAS INVESTIGATORY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THERE WAS A DETAILED, FACT-SPECIFIC DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined the questioning of defendant in his backyard and at the hospital constituted “a noncustodial investigatory inquiry” for which the Miranda warnings were not required. A comprehensive and detailed dissent argued the questioning was in fact “custodial” and the need for the Miranda warnings was triggered:

It is well settled that Miranda warnings must be given when a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation … . “In determining whether suppression is required, the court ‘should consider: (1) the amount of time the defendant spent with the police, (2) whether [defendant’s] freedom of action was restricted in any significant manner, (3) the location and atmosphere in which the defendant was questioned, (4) the degree of cooperation exhibited by the defendant, (5) whether [the defendant] was apprised of [their] constitutional rights, and (6) whether the questioning was investigatory or accusatory in nature’ ” … . Although no Miranda warnings were given to defendant while in his backyard or at the hospital, we conclude upon our review of the relevant factors that, under the circumstances here, the questioning by the police officers in each instance “constituted a noncustodial investigatory inquiry for which Miranda warnings were not required” … .

From the dissent:

In my view, each and every factor in determining whether defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes weighs in defendant’s favor. First, defendant was with the police in his backyard for almost an hour … . Second, defendant’s freedom of action, notwithstanding his leg injury, was restricted in a significant manner from the inception of the encounter. The encounter started with police officers yelling at defendant not to move, to get on the ground, and to let the officers see his hands at all times … . Moreover, defendant was informed multiple times that nothing would happen until the officers found the gun … . Next, the atmosphere in which defendant was questioned was highly intrusive because his backyard was full of officers searching for a gun … . It is apparent from the body camera footage that defendant did not cooperate with the officers because he never told them where the gun was, despite repeated accusatory questioning on the topic … . Despite the above, defendant was not advised of his Miranda warnings, and the officers’ questions to defendant were not merely investigatory in nature … . People v Casiano, 2025 NY Slip Op 04316, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult the dissent for some insight into when questioning by the police crosses the line from an investigatory inquiry to a custodial interrogation.

 

,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, ASKING DEFENDANT TO STEP OUT OF THE CAR AND PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID “SAFETY REASONS” CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL DETENTION WARRANTING SUPPRESSION OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, determined the statements were the fruit of an unlawful detention at a traffic stop. A two-justice dissent argued the unlawful detention lasted less than a minute before the police had probable cause to arrest, and, therefore, a hearing should be held to determine whether the spontaneous statements made by the defendant at the police station were the fruit of the poisonous tree:

The Troopers … directed the driver and defendant to exit the vehicle so the Troopers could conduct an inventory search. Pursuant to standard procedure, the driver and defendant were placed in handcuffs. No other basis for placing the driver and defendant in handcuffs was offered by the People, and at the suppression hearing one of the Troopers testified that, in the City of Rochester, “for our safety reasons, every single time we have somebody exit the vehicle, we put them in handcuffs.” Before the inventory search was conducted, the vehicle’s driver began acting nervous, and when one of the Troopers inquired about her behavior, the driver stated that there was a gun in a bag in the vehicle. The Troopers retrieved and searched the bag, which contained a loaded handgun. Defendant and the driver were then arrested and taken to the State Police station for processing, where defendant began talking to one of the Troopers and made spontaneous statements indicating that the gun belonged to him. * * *

We agree with defendant that by placing him in handcuffs after directing him to exit the vehicle, the Troopers transformed the traffic stop into a “forcible stop and detention” … , which “must be justified by some additional circumstances, such as a threat of evasive conduct . . . ; a need to transport the defendant for a showup procedure . . . ; a fear that the suspect may interfere with the execution of a search warrant . . . ; or a concern for officer safety” … . The People did not present evidence at the suppression hearing of ” ‘articulable facts’ from the encounter to establish reasonable suspicion that defendant posed any danger to the officers” … .

From the dissent:

As the majority concludes, two New York State Troopers unlawfully detained defendant in handcuffs following the traffic stop. At the time, the Troopers had no reason to believe that either defendant or the driver had committed a crime. But the unlawful detention lasted less than a minute before the driver informed the Troopers that there was a gun in the vehicle, thus providing the Troopers with probable cause to arrest both the driver and defendant for criminal possession of a weapon. Thus, at the time he made his statements, defendant was lawfully under arrest. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 04315, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Apparently the State Police consider the City of Rochester a high crime area and it is standard procedure for them, after a traffic stop in the city, to place the occupants of the car in handcuffs for “safety reasons.” The Fourth Department held that standard procedure constitutes an illegal detention.

 

, ,

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE TOWN DEFENDANTS NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE EITHER THAT THEY WERE NOT NEGLIGENT OR THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; BY FOCUSING ONLY ON PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE TOWN DEFENDANTS EFFECTIVELY ASSUMED THEY WERE NEGLIGENT; THE EVIDENCE THE DRIVER OF THE TOWN DUMP TRUCK WAS TRAVELING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE TOWN’S FAVOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The town’s dump truck collied with a car which failed to yield the right–of-way at an intersection, veered into plaintiff’s decedent’s lane and collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s car. The town focused its argument on proximate cause, contending that the car which failed to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident. But, to be entitled to summary judgment in this context, the defendant must demonstrate it was not negligent. By focusing on proximate case, the town defendants “must assume, arguendo, that they were negligent:”

The Town defendants’ submissions established that LaRocca, who was driving a dump truck containing 10 tons of asphalt, did not adhere to an advisory traffic sign recommending that speed be reduced to 35 miles per hour prior to entering the intersection and further established that the tree line limited his view of cross traffic at the intersection. If a trier of fact were to determine that LaRocca’s speed was unreasonable under the existing conditions, the trier of fact could also conclude that LaRocca’s own unreasonable speed was what deprived him of sufficient time to avoid the collision … . * * *

By focusing on “sole proximate cause” in this common-law negligence action, the Town defendants overlook the fact that their burden on their motion was to establish “as a matter of law that [they were] not negligent or that, even if [they were] negligent, [their] negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident” … . In other words, when moving for summary judgment in the negligence context and addressing only the issue of proximate cause, the Town defendants must effectively assume, arguendo, that they were negligent … . Inasmuch as the Town defendants did not do that here, we need not address their proximate cause argument. Gates v Simpson, 2025 NY Slip Op 04313, Fourth Dept 7-25-24

Practice Point: A defendant in a traffic accident case is entitled to summary judgment (1) if defendant was not negligent; or (2) even if defendant was negligent, defendant was not a proximate cause of the accident. In making a motion for summary judgment, if a defendant does not address defendant’s own negligence and focuses only on proximate cause, the defendant is “assuming” defendant was negligent.

 

,

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A LOAN?

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the contract between plaintiff and defendants was a revenue purchase agreement, not a loan. Therefore defendants’ argument the agreement constituted a usurious loan was rejected. However, questions of fact about the extent of the damages precluded summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The concurring justices agreed the contract was a revenue purchase agreement, but argued the analysis of the issue used by the majority, based upon a specific case, was wrong and suggested a different approach:

Under the agreement, plaintiff advanced a monetary amount to the entity defendants in exchange for 25% of the future revenues of their business, until the purchased amount, i.e., an agreed-upon amount that was greater than the advanced amount, was paid to plaintiff. There was no interest rate or payment schedule and no time period during which the purchased amount was to be collected by plaintiff. Indeed, the agreement specifically stated that it was not a loan and that the entity defendants were “not borrowing money from” plaintiff. The agreement contained a daily remittance amount, which constituted “a good faith estimate of” plaintiff’s share of the future revenue stream. The agreement also contained an acknowledgment from plaintiff that it was “entering this [a]greement knowing the risks that [the entity defendants’] business may slow down or fail, [that plaintiff] assumes these risks,” and that there would be no recourse for plaintiff in the event the entity defendants went bankrupt, went out of business, or experienced a slowdown in business, among other things. The agreement also contained two reconciliation provisions, whereby the daily remittance would be modified both retroactively and prospectively upon request and with proof of earned revenue amounts. * * *

In determining whether a transaction constitutes a loan, courts must determine whether the plaintiff ” ‘is absolutely entitled to repayment under all circumstances’ “; “[u]nless a principal sum advanced is repayable absolutely, the transaction is not a loan” … . “Usually, courts weigh three factors when determining whether repayment is absolute or contingent: (1) whether there is a reconciliation provision in the agreement; (2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy” (… see Samson MCA LLC, 219 AD3d at 1128 …). Bridge Funding Cap LLC v SimonExpress Pizza, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04306, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the nature of a revenue purchase agreement, as opposed to a loan. The majority used a Second Department case to structure its analysis. The two-justice concurrence agreed with the majority that the contract was a revenue purchase agreement, but suggested a different approach to the analysis.​

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSOLIDATED TWO INDICTMENTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming the convictions, determined Supreme Court properly consolidated two indictments. A comprehensive dissent disagreed:

… [T]he court properly exercised its discretion in granting consolidation pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b) because there is significant common evidence supporting both indictments. Most importantly, the same weapon was involved in the events underlying both indictments, and—indeed—is the critical piece of evidence supporting both … . * * *

… [T]he court properly exercised its discretion in granting consolidation of the indictments on the additional basis that they charged offenses that are “defined by the same or similar statutory provisions” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]). * * *

In opposing joinder, defendant failed to meet the statutory standard of showing that he had “a genuine need to refrain from testifying . . . [to] satisf[y] the court that the risk of prejudice is substantial” (CPL 200.20 [3] [b]). * * * …[D]efendant failed to demonstrate “that he had ‘both important testimony to give concerning one [offense] and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on the other’ ” … . People v Spinks, 2025 NY Slip Op 04303, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for consolidating two indictments, fleshed out by a comprehensive, detailed dissent.

 

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