You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

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.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ARGUING HIS ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR WAIVING AN INTERPRETER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON THE MOTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent. determined County Court should have held a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant argued defense attorney’s waiver of an interpreter constituted ineffective assistance. Defendant’s ineffective-assistance argument on direct appeal had been rejected, but the motion to vacate properly raised the waiver of an interpreter as a new issue:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in its determination that defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred pursuant to CPL 440.10 (2) (a) … . Although on direct appeal we rejected defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel … , we conclude that his present contentions are properly raised by way of a CPL 440.10 motion because they concern matters outside the record that was before us on his direct appeal … . Defendant’s motion contained sufficient evidence, including “sworn allegations . . by . . . defendant or by another person or persons” (CPL 440.30 [1] [a]), demonstrating that a hearing is necessary to determine whether trial counsel’s waiver of an interpreter for defendant adversely affected defendant’s right to meaningfully participate in his own defense … . Specifically, defendant submitted evidence that, although he was able to navigate conversational topics in English, he required the assistance of an interpreter when discussing more technical or esoteric topics and that he had in fact utilized the assistance of an interpreter at all but one court appearance prior to his trial counsel waiving such services for defendant just prior to trial. “Although the evidence in support of the motion does not ‘conclusively substantiate[ ] by unquestionable documentary proof’ that vacatur is required due to a violation of defendant’s right to [effective assistance of] counsel . . . , it is nonetheless suggestive of that fact” … . Defendant is therefore entitled to a hearing “on his entire claim of ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as such a claim constitutes a single, unified claim that must be assessed in totality” … . People v Anwar, 2025 NY Slip Op 04301, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: This decision gives some insight into when the court must conduct a hearing on a motion to vacate a conviction. The discussion is enriched by a two-justice dissent.

 

, ,

THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD REDACT FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT ANY REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s presentence report should have been redacted to remove reference to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted:

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in failing to redact improper statements from the presentence report (PSR) because they reference criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted … . Specifically, we agree with defendant that the inclusion in the PSR of statements regarding alleged sexual offenses by defendant involving another child, of which he was acquitted, “was inappropriate and inflammatory” … . We therefore direct County Court to redact the sentence on page 10 of the PSR referring to a statement by the victim “that there could be another victim . . . who was inappropriately touched by [defendant]”; the quotation on page 10 from an investigator stating that defendant ” ‘was having sexual intercourse with another underage female as well. High risk for children’ “; and the sentence on page 12 referring to a disclosure “that [defendant] has been sexually assaulting [the other victim] since she was nine years old” from all copies of defendant’s PSR.  People v Wilmet, 2025 NY Slip Op 03901, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A presentence report should not include any references to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted.​

 

 

A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were entitled to jurisdictional discovery to determine whether New York has long-arm jurisdiction over two individual employees of RMA, Waldrop and Clark, which sells body armor. An 18-year-old man committed a racially motivated mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, killing ten people and injuring many others. The complaint alleges that the body armor protected the shooter, allowing him to kill the security guard and shoot more people inside and outside the store:

…  “[I]n order to defeat a motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that facts may exist to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant[s]” … . We agree with plaintiffs that they have set forth a “sufficient start” … to show that their position is not ” ‘frivolous’ ” … . …

… With respect to Waldrop, plaintiffs allege that he was intimately involved in the daily operations of RMA, was involved in developing the body armor used by the shooter, and was directly involved in the marketing and sales of that body armor. They also allege that he chose to allow the sale of body armor to civilians, i.e., non-military and non-law enforcement personnel, or was “deliberately indifferent” to such sales, and that he knew RMA body armor was being marketed to and sold in New York. We conclude that those allegations are sufficient to warrant discovery on the matter of personal jurisdiction vis-à-vis Waldrop … . …

With respect to Clark, plaintiffs allege that he, personally, marketed the body armor to, and communicated directly with, the shooter, encouraging him to purchase the body armor, either knowing or having reason to know that the shooter was a civilian. Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of that individual conduct, Clark knew that RMA’s body armor was being sold to civilians in New York, presenting grave risks to New York residents. We thus likewise conclude that plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to warrant discovery on the matter of personal jurisdiction vis-à-vis Clark … . Salter v Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 03896, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of New York’s long-arm jurisdiction and the criteria for jurisdictional discovery.

 

, ,

THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE; AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND A WEAPON; LATER THEY SEARCHED THE CAR AGAIN AND FOUND A SECOND WEAPON; ONLY AFTER THE SEARCHES DID THEY START TO FILL OUT THE INVENTORY SEARCH FORM; THIS WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the weapons seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop should have been suppressed. The police were looking for specific weapons in a specific car at the time of the search. Therefore the search could not be considered a valid inventory search:

… [T]he record reveals that the purported inventory search was actually a pretext to search for contraband. At the suppression hearing, the testimony and body-worn camera footage established that one of the officers who stopped defendant’s vehicle identified him and testified that defendant had, earlier that day, been identified as someone likely to be in possession of a weapon. Following the traffic stop and while defendant was being detained pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant, two other officers arrived on the scene. One of the arriving officers identified the vehicle defendant was driving as one that the police thought defendant would be using and would be keeping a weapon in. The other arriving officer promptly began searching the front passenger area of the vehicle; he opened the glove box and found a weapon, prompting a police officer to observe “oh, there it is.” At that point, another officer said “let’s check for the second one,” and shortly thereafter a second weapon was found in the same spot, precisely as predicted by that officer. * * *

Our conclusion is not based merely on the fact that, in conducting the first search, the “officers knew that contraband might be recovered” from the vehicle … . Rather, the evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the officers’ purpose in conducting the first search was to find specific weapons in a specific vehicle possessed by a specific person, i.e., defendant. We also note that the officers did not begin the second search until about ten minutes after the weapons were discovered, and it was only at that time that an officer began filling out an inventory search form. The facts that the inventory search form was not made contemporaneously with the first search, as required by Buffalo Police Department policy, and that it was incomplete to the extent it failed to note, as required, obvious damage to the vehicle, merely underscores and corroborates our conclusion that the first search of the vehicle was pretextual. People v Cunningham, 2025 NY Slip Op 03890, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that the police did not start filling out the inventory-search form until after two  searches of the vehicle had turned up weapons demonstrated the attempt to color the warrantless search as an inventory search was a ruse.

 

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