You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

DEFENDANT CAR DEALERSHIP OWNED THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF, ITS SALESMAN, WAS INJURED DURING A TEST DRIVE; THE DEALERSHIP, AS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Paddock Chevrolet was immune from suit by its employee in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff, a salesman for Paddock, was a passenger in a car owned by Paddock which was being test-driven at the time of the accident. The court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Law protected Paddock from vicarious liability as the owner of the car pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 provides that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed by [section 10] shall be exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever, to such employee, . . . or any person otherwise entitled to recover damages, contribution or indemnity, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death or liability arising therefrom . . .” We thus agree with Paddock that plaintiff’s claims against it are barred.

Paddock correctly contends that New York has rejected the “dual capacity” doctrine … , rendering it irrelevant whether the amended complaint and cross claims asserted against Paddock were based on its status as plaintiff’s employer or its status as the owner of the vehicle who is vicariously liable for the negligence of a nonemployee driver under Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Mansour v Paddock Chevrolet, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05190, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

, ,

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND IN NEGLIGENCE, REQUIRING ANALYSES USING DIFFERENT CRITERIA; SOME CAUSES OF ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of plaintiff’s causes of action alleging medical malpractice and negligence against defendant nursing home should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged plaintiff’s decedent, a double amputee, was left unsupervised and fell from his bed. The Fourth Department noted the complaint alleged claims sounding in medical malpractice and in negligence:

… [T]he complaint … alleges several claims sounding in medical malpractice … [and] ]he summary judgment standard for medical malpractice claims should apply to those claims. … [P]laintiff alleges that defendants failed to “provide proper services to the decedent[,] . . . provide . . . adequate . . . staff[ing,] . . . change and/or adjust the decedent’s care plan . . . [, and] adequately formulate and/or promulgate a care plan in accordance with a comprehensive assessment[],” all of which sound in medical malpractice because they challenge defendants’ assessment of the decedent’s need for supervision … . * * * … [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact … by submitting the affidavit of her own expert, who opined that defendants deviated from the standard of care insofar as they did not amend the decedent’s care plan to require greater supervision after he was noted to be experiencing confusion and delirium … .  Plaintiff’s expert did not, however, address the claims regarding inadequate staffing procedures and training, and those claims are accordingly deemed abandoned … .

… [P]laintiff’s claims that defendants were negligent in failing to follow the care plan and to equip the decedent’s wheelchair with a seatbelt sound in ordinary negligence inasmuch as they relate to defendants’ general duty to safeguard the nursing home’s residents, measured by “the capacity of [a resident] to provide for his or her own safety” … and “the [resident’s] physical and mental ailments known to the [agency’s] officials . . . and employees” … . … Defendants met [their] burden with respect to the claim alleging negligence in failing to equip the decedent’s wheelchair with a seatbelt by submitting evidence that they formulated a plan of care that addressed the decedent’s risk of falling, and that a restrictive lap belt was not used in their facility. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition with respect to that claim inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert failed to opine how a nonrestrictive lap belt would have prevented the subject accident … . Noga v Brothers of Mercy Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 05189, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

,

BUFFALO MAYOR’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION-LAW DEADLINE FOR FILING AN INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITION, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY SUPREME COURT, REJECTED BY THE 4TH DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Election Law 6-158 (9) was not unconstitutional as applied to a Buffalo mayoral race. The petitioner, who had lost in a primary, attempted to file an independent nominating petition in August but the Election Law required filing in May:

The degree of scrutiny used to analyze the constitutionality of a state election regulation depends on the severity of the regulation’s burden on the constitutional rights of candidates and their supporters … . If that burden is severe, the law “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance” … . A provision imposing “only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions,” however, can be justified by a state’s “important regulatory interests” … and is subject to a review that is “quite deferential” and requires “no elaborate, empirical verification” … . The totality of a state’s overall plan of election regulation should be considered in determining the severity of the restrictions … . * * *

Because a “reasonably diligent candidate” could be expected to meet New York’s requirements for independent candidates and gain a place on the ballot … and because those requirements do not unfairly discriminate against independent candidates … , we conclude that Election Law § 6-158 (9) places only a minimal burden on the constitutional rights of those candidates and their voters. Matter of Brown v Erie County Bd. of Elections, 2021 NY Slip Op 05014, Fourth Dept 9-16-21

 

,

THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE DRO TO SPECIFY PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF DEFENDANT’S DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT WOULD HAVE APPLIED THE LACHES DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the doctrine of laches did not apply and defendant could recoup a lump sum disability retirement payment made to plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced and a stipulation provided plaintiff would receive her marital share of defendant’s retirement benefits under the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS). A Domestic Relations Order (DRO) was filed in 2010. In 2011 the NYSLRS approved the DRO with respect to ordinary retirement but was silent on disability retirement. In 2019 the NYSLRS approved defendant’s 2016 disability retirement application and a retroactive lump sum payment was made to defendant and plaintiff. In 2019 defendant moved to amend the DRO to specify plaintiff was not entitled to the disability retirement benefits. Supreme Court denied the motion applying the doctrine of laches. The dissent apparently agreed the laches doctrine was properly applied:

“Laches is defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity . . . The essential element of this equitable defense is delay prejudicial to the opposing party” … . “The mere lapse of time, without a showing of prejudice, will not sustain a defense of laches” … .

Here, the court found that defendant should have sought to amend the DRO in 2011, after receiving the letter from NYSLRS. But at that time, defendant was not eligible for and had not applied for a disability retirement. When his disability retirement application was approved in February 2019 and defendant became aware that plaintiff’s distribution would accordingly increase, he promptly moved to amend the DRO. Moreover, even if there was a delay here, plaintiff utterly failed to make a showing of prejudice … . Taberski v Taberski, 2021 NY Slip Op 04804, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, , ,

THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

THIS OPINION WAS VACATED ON JANUARY 28, 2022, AND REPLACED WITH 2022 NY Slip Op 00560

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the police officer’s (Dorchester’s) testimony at the suppression hearing established probable cause to search defendant’s car based upon the smell of PCP, or, as the court described it, “olfactory detection of street-level PCP.” The opinion was as much directed to improprieties in the appellate brief as to  the “olfactory detection of PCP:”

“[A]s soon as I walked up to the vehicle,” Dorchester testified, “I could smell a really strong chemical odor that was familiar to myself as PCP.” Dorchester had received PCP training at the police academy; he regularly received updated training on PCP and other drugs; and he had encountered PCP and its distinctive smell “hundreds” of times over the course of his career as a police officer. Based on his training and experience, Dorchester testified, he immediately recognized the odor emanating from defendant’s vehicle as PCP. When pressed on whether he could have been smelling something else, Dorchester held firm: the smell of PCP, he explained, was “pretty distinct.” * * *

[I]t is astoundingly inaccurate for defendant’s brief to assert that “[t]his is a case of first impression.” Moreover, the representation in defendant’s brief that “none of the Appellate Divisions . . . has ever passed upon the question of whether the smell of PCP may, standing alone, constitute probable cause to search” is an unacceptable dereliction of counsel’s duty of candor to our Court, for the First Department has done precisely that in two separate cases … . And given that Sanchez [168 AD3d 584] involved a car search, the statement in defendant’s brief that “no appellate case law from this state . . . has approved the search of a vehicle based solely on the smell of PCP” is yet another misrepresentation of the caselaw. We take this opportunity to echo the First Department’s monition that “counsel has an obligation to bring adverse authority to [our] attention” … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s appellate brief levels serious allegations of perjury, official misconduct, and federal civil rights violations against officer Dorchester. The record, however, lacks any proof to substantiate appellate counsel’s accusations. It is one thing to suggest that Dorchester’s testimony was legally insufficient to justify the search … . But it is quite another thing to file a brief that directly, repeatedly, and unnecessarily accuses Dorchester of serious crimes without evidentiary support. Counsel’s “baseless assertions are shockingly irresponsible” … . People v Fudge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04801, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY APPLIED THE DISCOVERY STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE ORDER TO TURN OVER THE ROSARIO MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL WAS MADE, FINDING THE ORDER PROPER; THE CONCURRENCE AGREED BUT ARGUED THE COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RULE THAT THE DISCOVERY STATUTE ENACTED IN 2019 SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence, affirmed defendant’s conviction. One of the issues in the appeal was whether it was appropriate for the court to order the prosecution to turn over Rosario material one week before trial. The majority ruled the order was proper under the former law, CPL former 240.45. The concurrence agreed but argued the court should decide whether the current law, enacted in 2019 (see CPL 245.10 [1] [a]; 245.20) should always be applied prospectively:

We reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s failure to produce a video-recorded statement of the victim until one week prior to trial. Defendant does not dispute that the recording constitutes Rosario material. Under the discovery rules in effect at the time of defendant’s trial, “[w]here, as here, [a] witness[ is] not called to testify at a pretrial hearing, Rosario material need not be disclosed until ‘[a]fter the jury has been sworn and before the prosecutor’s opening address’ ” ( … CPL former 240.45 [1] [a]). Neither party requested that this Court consider the retroactivity of the new discovery statute now in effect. People v Austen, 2021 NY Slip Op 04798, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BEFORE SENTENCING HIM AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court was obligated to determine whether defendant was a second violent felony offender before sentencing defendant as a second felony offender:

Where it is apparent at the time of sentencing that a defendant may be a second violent felony offender, the People are required to file a second violent felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.15 and, if appropriate, the court is then required to sentence the defendant as a second violent felony offender … . Here, no such statement was filed, although the People were aware that, approximately 10 years earlier, defendant had been incarcerated in North Carolina for a period of approximately 38 months on a prior conviction of voluntary manslaughter … . Had the court concluded based on that predicate offense that defendant is a second violent felony offender for this class C violent felony, the court would have been constrained by statute to impose a sentence that includes a determinate term of incarceration of not less than seven years and not more than 15 years … , and thus the six-year term of incarceration that defendant actually received pursuant to his plea agreement would have been illegal. People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 04883, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was entitled to a directed verdict in this action which alleged plaintiff’s daughter was injured when a faculty member used a microphone to tell the students to be quiet. It was alleged loudness of the command caused injury:

In order to prevail on a negligence claim, ” ‘a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom’ “… . On appeal, defendant disputes the element of breach only. To that end, the standard to which defendant and its employees are held is “that degree of care which a reasonable [parent] of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances, commensurate with the apparent risk involved” … . Further, “[w]hen a duty exists, nonliability in a particular case may be justified on the basis that an injury is not foreseeable” … .

Although the proof at trial reflected that a school faculty member had “yelled” two words into a microphone and “was really loud” in doing so, there was no proof presented that those words were spoken in a manner or at a volume that was unreasonable, foreseeably unsafe, or in violation of any applicable standard of care. In other words, “[w]ithout knowing what is ‘too loud’,” “there [was] no standard of care by which a jury could determine on the evidence presented that defendant[] had breached a duty owed to plaintiff”… . Because there was no “rational process by which the [jury] could base a finding in favor of [plaintiff]” on the element of breach, we conclude that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict … . Joni C. v Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04859, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

DEFENDANT MADE A VALID REQUEST TO APPEAR IN THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AMENDED INDICTMENT WAS FILED; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY WAS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, dismissing the indictment, determined defendant should have been allowed to testify before the grand jury:

CPL 190.50 (5) (a) provides that a defendant’s request to testify is timely as long as it is made prior to the filing of the indictment” … . Here, defendant’s June 8, 2017 notice, which ” ‘satisfied the statutory requirements for notifying the People of a request to appear before the grand jury’ ” … , was received by the District Attorney on the same day, prior to the filing of the amended indictment on June 9, 2017. Contrary to the contention of the People and the rationale of the court, it is of no moment under the statute that defendant had previously declined the opportunity to testify … . “Where, as here, defendant’s request to testify is received after the grand jury has voted, but before the filing of the indictment, defendant is entitled to a reopening of the proceeding to enable the grand jury to hear defendant’s testimony and to revote the case, if the grand jury be so advised” … . People v Royal-Clanton, 2021 NY Slip Op 04856, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

,

THE STATE BREACHED ITS DUTY TO PROTECT AN INMATE FROM AN ATTACK BY OTHER INMATES; COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims and granting judgment in favor of the claimant, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant, an inmate, demonstrated the state was negligent in failing to protect him from an attack by other inmates:

… [C]laimant—who had an unblemished disciplinary record—cooperated with an investigation by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) into an illegal sexual relationship between a female correction officer (Parkinson) and several male inmates. Among the inmates involved in the illegal relationship was a gang leader inside the prison. During the course of the investigation, a state official left documents evidencing claimant’s cooperation where an inmate porter could see them, and the porter shared that information with other inmates, including the gang leader implicated in the investigation. The gang leader then collaborated with other inmates to instigate a brutal assault on claimant. Prior to the attack, one of the inmates informed Parkinson of the plan. * * *

… [T]he trial evidence proves decisively that defendant either knew or should have known that claimant was at serious risk of being attacked as a result of his cooperation. Specifically, defendant knew that claimant had just reported an illegal sexual relationship between Parkinson and an inmate gang leader, and defendant’s failure to safeguard the investigatory file allowed that fact to spread through the inmate population. As defendant’s own witnesses testified at trial, the risk to an inmate in claimant’s position under these circumstances would have been obvious and well-known. Notwithstanding the reasonably foreseeable risk to claimant, defendant failed to take any steps to protect him. In short, given Parkinson’s prior retaliation, the gang leader’s influence, motive, and ability to instigate an attack, and defendant’s failure to safeguard the facility’s investigatory file, we conclude that defendant’s decision to simply leave claimant in his dormitory, surrounded by associates of the gang leader and guarded only by Parkinson, constituted a grave breach of its duty to use “reasonable care under the circumstances” to protect an inmate in its custody … . McDevitt v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04795, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

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