You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN UNGUARDED, UNILLUMINATED SEAWALL AT THE BACK OF DEFENDANTS’ YARD CONSTITUTED AN ACTIONABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF, AT NIGHT, FELL OVER THE WALL DOWN TO THE BEACH BELOW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the unguarded seawall in defendants’ backyard constituted a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was at defendants’ party and walked to the back of the yard to relieve himself when he fell over the wall, which was 20 feet above the lake:

Defendants’ backyard is approximately 20 feet above the lake, separated by a natural cliff that runs along the shoreline. Built into the face of the cliff is the 15-foot-high seawall, which consists of two levels, with an upper and a lower platform, and a cement staircase built into the center of the seawall that permits access from the backyard to the lower platform. Defendants’ backyard includes a cement sidewalk that leads to the top of the seawall’s staircase. Plaintiff fell off the seawall down to the beach below and sustained various injuries. * * *

… [D]efendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact whether the alleged hazard posed by the cliff and seawall, given the lighting conditions at the time of the accident, “was visible and obvious or presented a latent, dangerous condition” … . Stempien v Walls, 2021 NY Slip Op 02683, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

, , ,

NON-OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO VACATE AN ERIE COUNTY TAX FORECLOSURE SALE; THE RIGHT TO PAY THE DELINQUENT TAXES HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the tax foreclosure sale of property owned by Black Rock to appellant should not have been vacated.  Respondent, Fedder, moved to vacate the sale. After County Court granted Fedder’s motion, the delinquent taxes were paid, the County issued a certificate of redemption to Black Rock, which then sold the property to Fedder:

… [T]his is not a mortgage foreclosure action, where the “equity of redemption” permits property owners “to redeem their property by tendering the full sum” owed before a valid sale is effectuated … . Here, instead, the right to pay the delinquent taxes by virtue of the equity of redemption was extinguished several months prior to Fedder’s motion by order to show cause, according to the ECTA [Erie County Tax Act], the public notice of foreclosure, and the terms of the judgment of foreclosure (see ECTA §§ 11-10.0, 11-12.0; see also RPTL art 11 … ). … [T]he purported redemption, the issuance of the certificate of redemption, and the purported sale and transfer of title from Black Rock to Fedder are nullities … . …

Fedder did not have standing to seek equitable relief in this case. Pursuant to ECTA § 7-10.0, the court could not set aside the sale to appellant “except upon a proceeding brought therefor by the owner of such real property within three months from the date of such sale.” Here, no such proceeding was brought. Instead, Fedder, a nonowner, filed a motion by order to show cause in this foreclosure action, and Black Rock, the owner, was not a party to the motion. In light of the ” ‘clear legislative intent’ ” of section 7-10.0 …, Fedder did not have standing to seek rescission of the sale.  Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens, 2021 NY Slip Op 02681, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

IN THIS LIEN LAW DISPUTE OVER PAYMENT PURSUANT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE RESTORATION OF IMPROPERLY DIVERTED TRUST ASSETS WITH NON-TRUST ASSETS LIMITED DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Lien-Law construction-contract action, over a dissent, determined defendants did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the improper diversion of trust assets was cured by the restoration of trust assets with non-trust assets:

“[T]he primary purpose of [Lien Law] article 3-A and its predecessors . . . [is] to ensure that those who have directly expended labor and materials to improve real property [or a public improvement] at the direction of the owner or a general contractor receive payment for the work actually performed” … . “Use of trust assets for any purpose other than the expenditures authorized in Lien Law § 71 before all trust claims have been paid or discharged constitutes an improper diversion of trust assets, regardless of the propriety of the trustee’s intentions” … . Under Lien Law article 3-A, a trust beneficiary may maintain an action “to recover trust assets from anyone to whom they have been diverted with notice of their trust status” … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting defendants’ motion in part by limiting the potential damages in the diversion causes of action to a maximum of $104,205.99 based on Top Capital’s [defendant’s] alleged restoration of trust assets through payments made with non-trust assets … . Plaintiffs allege that approximately $1.4 million in trust assets was improperly diverted by defendants. The court, in limiting the potential recovery on the diversion causes of action, credited not just Top Capital but all defendants for the approximately $1.3 million Top Capital paid DiMarco [plaintiff] from non-trust assets after the trust fund was depleted. That was error because defendants failed to establish their entitlement to a restoration defense as a matter of law. Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the Court of Appeals has rejected the argument that a defendant can cure an improper diversion of trust assets, and therefore avoid liability for that diversion, by a subsequent payment from non-trust assets … . DiMarco Constructors, LLC v Top Capital of N.Y. Brockport, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02680, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S MAINTENANCE AWARD MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BASED UPON THE FACTORS ENUMERATED IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating the maintenance award and remitting for recalculation, determined Supreme Court did not set forth the factors for the maintenance calculation as required by Domestic Relations Law 236:

Defendant husband appeals from a judgment of divorce that, inter alia, directed him to pay plaintiff wife $750 a week in maintenance for a period of 17 years. On appeal, he contends that Supreme Court erred in awarding maintenance for a period of time in excess of the recommendation set forth in the advisory schedule in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (f) (1) without adequately demonstrating its reliance on the relevant statutory factors enumerated in section 236 (B) (6) (e) (see § 236 [B] [6] [f] [2]). We agree and further conclude that the court erred in awarding plaintiff maintenance without sufficiently setting forth the relevant factors enumerated in section 236 (B) (6) (e) that it relied on in reaching its determination. Although the court need not specifically cite the factors enumerated in that section, its analysis must show that it at least considered the relevant factors in making its determination … . The determination must also “reflect[] an appropriate balancing of [the wife’s] needs and [the husband’s] ability to pay” … .

… [T]he court stated that it awarded plaintiff $750 per week—an amount deviating from the statutory guidelines—for a duration in excess of the statutory guidelines based on the length of the marriage, the parties’ disproportionate earning capacities, and defendant’s tax debt. However, although the statutory guidelines use the length of the marriage to calculate the duration of the maintenance award … , the length of the parties’ marriage is not a factor enumerated in section 236 (B) (6) (e). Further, the court did not state what factors it considered, in addition to actual earnings, in determining the parties’ earning capacities … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether defendant’s substantial tax debt would impede his ability to pay plaintiff’s maintenance award … . Thus, the court failed to show that it considered any of the factors enumerated in section 236 (B) (6) (e) (1) in making its determination of both the amount and duration of the maintenance award. Gutierrez v Gutierrez, 2021 NY Slip Op 02662, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

, ,

THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLANTIFF FOR TRESPASS AFTER SHE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE THE RESTAURANT BY RESTAURANT STAFF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s cause of action for false arrest should have been dismissed in this excessive-force, civil-rights-violation action against two police officers. Plaintiff got into an argument with restaurant staff and was asked to leave by the staff, who then called the police. The police broke plaintiff’s arm when attempting to handcuff her. The excessive force, civil-rights-violation causes of action properly survived defendants’ summary judgment motions. But there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass, requiring dismissal of the false arrest cause of action:

“[T]he existence of probable cause is an absolute defense to a false arrest claim” … . This is so even if probable cause exists with respect to an offense other than the one actually invoked at the time of arrest … . Here, although plaintiff lawfully entered the restaurant premises as a customer, her license to remain was revoked when she was asked to leave after she began arguing with the staff. When plaintiff refused to leave the restaurant property at the request of its staff, she committed a trespass … . Inasmuch as plaintiff committed an ongoing trespass in defendants’ presence (see CPL 140.10 [1] [a]), defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for that violation … . Snow v Rochester Police Officer Christopher Schreier, 2021 NY Slip Op 02638, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PETITIONER-SEX-OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 civil commitment of petitioner as a dangerous sex offender, determined Supreme Court should not have denied petitioner’s request to represent himself:

We have recognized that a respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding “can effectively waive his or her statutory right to counsel” once the court “conducts a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent” … . In the instant case, respondent made a timely and unequivocal request to proceed pro se, the court conducted the requisite searching inquiry, and respondent repeatedly evinced an understanding of each of the court’s warnings to him regarding the possible consequences of proceeding pro se … . The court, however, denied the request because it believed that respondent “[had] a good chance of prevailing” but did not believe that respondent “[had] a chance . . . of prevailing if [the court] let [respondent] go pro se.”

On the record before us, we conclude that the court’s sole rationale for denying the request was its belief that respondent lacked legal training and an understanding of the law, but that is not an appropriate basis on which to deny a request to proceed pro se … . “[M]ere ignorance of the law cannot vitiate an effective waiver of counsel as long as the defendant was cognizant of the dangers of waiving counsel at the time it was made” … . Matter of State of New York v Michael M., 2021 NY Slip Op 02636, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING COVERAGE TO A PARTY LISTED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IN A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about plaintiff’s reliance on a certificate of insurance and whether the certificate was issued by the carrier or its agent. Although a certificate of insurance is not a contract, the carrier may be estopped from denying coverage if the party named as an additional insured in the certificate relied on the certificate and the certificate was issued by the insurer or its agent:

“It is well established that a certificate of insurance, by itself, does not confer insurance coverage, particularly [where, as here,] the certificate expressly provides that it is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder [and] does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies” … . “A certificate of insurance is only evidence of a carrier’s intent to provide coverage but is not a contract to insure the designated party nor is it conclusive proof, standing alone, that such a contract exists” … .

” ‘Nevertheless, an insurance company that issues a certificate of insurance naming a particular party as an additional insured may be estopped from denying coverage to that party where the party reasonably relies on the certificate of insurance to its detriment’ ” … ” ‘For estoppel based upon the issuance of a certificate of insurance to apply, however, the certificate must have been issued by the insurer itself or by an agent of the insurer’ ” … . County of Erie v Gateway-Longview, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02631, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

HERE THE ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE COUNT WAS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER; THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND THE COUNT DISMISSED; THE TERM “INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT” WAS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that assault in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of assault on a police officer and the assault second conviction must therefore be reversed and the count dismissed:

Counts are concurrent when “concurrent sentences only may be imposed in case of conviction thereon,” and such counts “are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” (CPL 300.30 [3], [4]). Here, concurrent sentencing was required inasmuch as the same conduct formed the basis of each count … and, as charged here, assault in the second degree is a lesser included offense of assault on a police officer … . People v Felong, 2021 NY Slip Op 01901, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM BEFORE FORMING THE INTENT TO SHOOT; THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SENTENCE MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTING-RELATED OFFENSES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, directing that the sentences run concurrently, noted there was no evidence defendant possessed the loaded firearm before he formed the intent to shoot the victim:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [1], [4]), two counts each of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [2], [4]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]), and one count each of assault in the first degree (§ 120.10 [4]), attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [5]). … . * * *

Where a defendant is charged with both criminal possession of a weapon in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3) and a different crime that has an element involving the use of that weapon, consecutive sentencing is permissible if “[the] defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon” such that the possessory crime has already been completed … . The People have the burden of establishing that consecutive sentences are legal, i.e., that the two crimes were committed through separate and distinct acts … . …

The People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as there are no facts alleged in the counts of the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty or in the plea allocution that would establish that defendant possessed the loaded firearm prior to forming his intent to shoot the victim … or that the act of possessing the loaded firearm “was separate and distinct from” his act of shooting the victim … . People v Boyd, 2021 NY Slip Op 01897, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

THE APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST THE OBSTRUCTION OF PASSAGEWAYS; IT ALSO APPLIES TO BUILDING MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT PROPERLY STORED AND SECURED (AND FALLS); PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been dismissed in this falling object case. Plaintiff was struck by a component of an unbuilt mail box which fell:

Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1), which provides in relevant part that “[a]ll building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner. Material piles shall be stable under all conditions and so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … . Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the scope of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1) is not limited exclusively to obstructed thoroughfares … . Rather, the plain text of the regulation creates three distinct obligations and potential sources of liability: first, “[a]ll building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner”; second, “[m]aterial piles shall be stable under all conditions”; and third, “[m]aterial piles shall be . . . so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … . …

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that the mailbox component at issue qualifies as a “building material[]” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1), and we further agree with plaintiff that triable issues of fact exist regarding the “safe[ty] and orderl[iness]” of the “manner” in which defendants “stored” that “building material[].” Slowe v Lecesse Constr. Servs., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01887, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

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