You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

PETITIONER SOUGHT ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY;” THE 4TH DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE CATALYST THEORY, FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the so-called “catalyst theory” did not apply to New York’s Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The EAJA, in certain circumstances, allows a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees against the state. Here petitioner argued that petitioner’s seeking reconsideration of a determination by the NYS Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) prompted the OPWDD to grant petitioner’s application. Petitioner argued the request for reconsideration was the “catalyst” for the OPWDD’s granting the application and petitioner was therefore entitled to attorney’s fees. The Fourth Department determined petitioner was not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the NYS EAJA:

This Court has yet to address the issue, but we now reject application of the catalyst theory in State EAJA cases. Where, as here, litigation is rendered moot by an administrative change in position, the petitioner or plaintiff has not prevailed “in the civil action” (CPLR 8602 [f]). Matter of Criss v New York State Dept. of Health, 2021 NY Slip Op 01642, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT PROVIDERS, WHO WERE TREATING MOTHER, DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO HER SON, WHO WAS STABBED AND KILLED BY MOTHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant medical/mental health facilities and psychiatrist, who were treating plaintiff’s wife, did not owe a duty to plaintiff’s son, who was killed by plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff had called defendant Unity Mental Health (UMH) several times seeking additional care because his wife’s condition was worsening. Plaintiff was told his wife should keep her psychiatric appointment which was two weeks away. Two days later plaintiff’s wife stabbed their son (decedent):

Generally, medical providers owe a duty of care only to their patients, and courts have been reluctant to expand that duty to encompass nonpatients because doing so would render such providers liable “to a prohibitive number of possible plaintiffs” … .The scope of that duty of care has, on occasion, been expanded to include nonpatients where the defendants’ relationship to the tortfeasor ” ‘place[d] [them] in the best position to protect against the risk of harm,’ ” and “the balancing of factors such as the expectations of the parties and society in general, the proliferation of claims, and public policies affecting the duty proposed herein . . . tilt[ed] in favor of establishing a duty running from defendants to plaintiffs under the facts alleged” … . Under the circumstances of this case, however, we conclude that those factors do not favor establishing a duty running from defendants to decedent. The complaint herein does not allege that plaintiff’s wife sought treatment specifically in order to prevent physical injury to decedent or her family, that defendants were aware whether she had threatened or displayed violence towards her family in the past, or that defendants directly put in motion the danger posed by the patient … . Cardenas v Rochester Regional Health, 2021 NY Slip Op 01641, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION PAPERS RAISED A FACTUAL ISSUE REQUIRING A HEARING, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant had raised a factual issue requiring a suppression hearing:

“When made before trial, suppression motions must be in writing, state the legal ground of the motion and contain sworn allegations of fact made by defendant or another person” … . A hearing may be denied “unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” … .

Here, defendant specifically alleged that officers “responded to [the scene] after . . . defendant, or someone at his behest, called 911” and that defendant, upon their arrival, told them that he “found [the victim] on the stairs bleeding and was trying to help him.” Defendant alleged that, based on that information, “[t]he police removed [him] from the scene and placed him in the back of a police vehicle, and took his personal cell phone from him” without reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying the intrusion. Although the People contended that defendant made other statements to the officers that heightened their level of suspicion and justified the intrusion, defendant’s motion papers disputed this assertion, alleging instead that, at the time of the intrusion, “the police knew nothing more than [that the victim] appeared to have been shot, and [that defendant] . . . had discovered him and summoned help while trying to give assistance at the scene.” Indeed, at oral argument on the motion, defendant further explained that he specifically disputed what information the police had at the time of the intrusion. We conclude that, under these circumstances, defendant sufficiently raised a factual issue necessitating a hearing … . People v White, 2021 NY Slip Op 01639, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN THE DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO SATISFY BATSON (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined the three-step Batson procedure was not followed when the defense objected to the People’s peremptory challenge to an African-American prospective juror:

After defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination in step one, the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge … , namely, that the prospective juror had a sister who was incarcerated for assaulting someone with a gun and that the prospective juror said that the criminal justice system could have treated her sister better. When defense counsel attempted to respond, the court interrupted him and stated, “I ruled. There is no Batson issue.” Defense counsel timely objected to the court’s ruling. In our view, defense counsel should have been “given the opportunity to argue that the prosecutor’s explanation[ was] a pretext for discrimination” … . * * *

… [W]hen it interrupted defense counsel, “the court improperly rushed and compressed the Batson inquiry,” precluding defendant from meeting “his burden of establishing an equal protection violation” … . To be distinguished are situations in which defense counsel does not make “any attempt to respond or protest[ ]” …  or in which the court implicitly rejects the pretext argument by letting the challenge stand after hearing a defense counsel’s arguments concerning pretext … . People v Singleton, 2021 NY Slip Op 01638, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, BUT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS A CONTINUING CRIME AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED AS A SINGLE COUNT, NOT FOUR COUNTS; AN OBJECTION OR A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AN ERROR AFTER A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined statements made after defendant unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent should have been suppressed, but the error was harmless. In addition the Fourth Department dismissed three counts of criminal possession of a weapon because all four counts related to the uninterrupted possession of a single weapon at different times. The court also noted that if the trial court gives a curative instruction after an objection, another objection or a motion for a mistrial is necessary to preserve the issue for appeal:

… [D]efendant told the police three times that he did not wish to speak to them. We conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is supported by the record with respect to the first such instance, because in that instance he “did not clearly communicate a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely” … , “especially in light of his continued participation in the conversation” … . We further conclude, however, that the remainder of the court’s determination is not supported by the record, inasmuch as, twice more during the questioning, “defendant said that he did not want to talk about [the crimes], thus unequivocally invoking his right to remain silent” … . Consequently, the court was required to suppress the statements that defendant made after invoking his right to remain silent for the second time. * * *

Defendant … contends in his main brief that the court erred in refusing to dismiss various counts of the indictment charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) inasmuch as the indictment charged him with multiple counts of that crime based on his commission of a singular continuing offense. We agree. “An indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . Here, the indictment charged defendant with four separate counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) for the uninterrupted possession of a single weapon at different times. We conclude that such possession “constituted a single offense for which he could be prosecuted only once” … . Consequently, we affirm that part of the judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) in count 17 of the indictment, and we modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting him of that crime under counts 8, 11, and 16 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Johnston, 2021 NY Slip Op 01632, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contempt charges in this neglect/custody proceeding were jurisdictionally defective:

We… conclude that the court erred in granting in part plaintiff’s contempt applications because they were jurisdictionally defective under Judiciary Law § 756. Section 756 provides that a contempt “application shall contain on its face a notice that the purpose of the hearing is to punish the accused for a contempt of court, and that such punishment may consist of fine or imprisonment, or both, according to law together with the following legend . . . : WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.” It is well settled that the failure to include the notice or the warning language of Judiciary Law § 756 constitutes a jurisdictional defect, requiring the court to deny the application … .

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s initial and amended contempt applications did not include, verbatim, the required warning language of Judiciary Law § 756. Importantly, plaintiff’s contempt applications omitted the language warning defendant that his “failure to appear in court may result in [his] immediate . . . imprisonment for contempt of court” (id.). Thus, because plaintiff’s contempt applications failed to include the required warning language, they did not strictly comply with Judiciary Law § 756, rendering them jurisdictionally defective … . Rennert v Rennert, 2021 NY Slip Op 01630, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

THE GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department. reversing Family Court, determined genetic marker testing to establish paternity should not have ordered without holding a hearing to determine if the testing is in the best interests of the child:

We agree with the mother that the court erred in ordering genetic marker testing without first holding a hearing to determine whether testing was in the best interests of the child. It is undisputed that, at the time of the child’s birth, respondents were married to one another, and respondents alleged that they had access to each other during the relevant time frame such that the presumption of legitimacy would apply. Although the court has the authority to order genetic marker and DNA testing in order to establish paternity, “[n]o such test shall be ordered . . . upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of . . . the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman” … . On this record, “[t]here was insufficient evidence before the court to determine the child’s best interests,” and we thus conclude that, before ordering the genetic marker test, the court should have conducted a hearing to determine whether it was in the best interests of the child to do so, based on the presumption of legitimacy … . Matter of Kirk M.B. v Rachel S., 2021 NY Slip Op 01602, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

THE PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESION OF WEAPONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s convictions for criminal use of a firearm and criminal possession of weapon because the proof of constructive possession was legally insufficient:

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction of the counts of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Those counts were based on defendant’s constructive possession of a rifle that was found in the house after the police entered. The People failed to establish that defendant “exercised dominion or control over [the rifle] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” to establish that she had constructive possession of it … . People v Lora, 2021 NY Slip Op 01597, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S DETERMINATION DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the failure to time file proof of service of respondent’s objections to the determination of the Support Magistrate did not warrant dismissal of the objections:

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that a party filing objections to the determination of the Support Magistrate must serve those objections upon the opposing party, and that proof of service “shall be filed with the court at the time of filing of objections.” Here, the record indicates that respondent timely filed his objections and served a copy of those objections upon petitioner on the same day, but respondent failed to file proof of service with Family Court until two days later.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we substitute our discretion for that of Family Court and conclude that dismissal of respondent’s objections is not warranted … . Although respondent failed to comply with the statutory deadline for filing proof of service, ” ‘[s]trict adherence to this deadline is not required,’ ” and courts have ” ‘discretion to overlook a minor failure to comply with the statutory requirement’ ” … . Here, there is no dispute that petitioner was not prejudiced by the late filing inasmuch as she was served with a copy of respondent’s objections within the statutory time period (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Indeed, the record shows that petitioner filed a rebuttal to respondent’s objections. Matter of Sigourney v Santaro, 2021 NY Slip Op 01591, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

COUNTY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitted the mater for a determination whether defendant is eligible for youthful offender status:

Because defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense … , he is ineligible to receive a youthful offender adjudication unless the court determines that one of two mitigating factors is present … . If the court, in its discretion, determines that neither of the mitigating factors is present and states the reason for its determination on the record, then no further determination on the youthful offender application is required … . If, however, the court determines that one or more of those mitigating factors are present, and that defendant is therefore an eligible youth, it must then determine whether defendant is a youthful offender … .

Here, the court did not follow the procedure set forth in Middlebrooks [25 NY3d 516], inasmuch as it made no on-the-record determination of defendant’s eligibility for a youthful offender adjudication at sentencing … . People v Reed, 2021 NY Slip Op 01590, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

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