You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

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

 

,

THE JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO HOLD A PRE-TRIAL HUNTLEY HEARING ON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge’s refusal to hold a Huntley hearing to determine the voluntariness of defendant’s statements until several witnesses testified at trial was reversible error:

“When [a] motion [to suppress evidence] is made before trial, the trial may not be commenced until determination of the motion” (CPL 710.40 [3] …). Here, defendant moved to suppress his statements to the police on the ground that they were involuntarily made (see CPL 710.20 [3]), but the court did not rule on the motion prior to trial and repeatedly refused to conduct a pretrial Huntley hearing, even after the People requested a Huntley hearing at the outset of the trial. Instead, the court granted the People’s request for a Huntley hearing over defendant’s objection after nine of the ten prosecution witnesses had already testified. Following that hearing, the court found the statements to be voluntary and thus admissible.

The error is not harmless. It is well established that, “unless the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming, there is no occasion for consideration of any doctrine of harmless error” … . Here, the evidence was not overwhelming … . The central factual question in this case was identity. The evidence of identity was that defendant was apprehended coming out of a building located on the block towards which the culprit had been seen running, he fit the description of the culprit, and he was identified by three eyewitnesses after a showup procedure. On the other hand, defendant did not have in his possession the fruits of the crime or the firearm used in the crime, nor was he dressed like the culprit. Moreover, showup identification procedures are inherently suggestive … , and the culprit had been wearing a partial face covering at the time of the crime, which further undermined the reliability of the identifications … . People v Coffie, 2021 NY Slip Op 01884, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY MURDER, TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED PRIMARILY ON HIS CONFESSION; THE ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED MINIMAL INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL; COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST THE REDACTION OF DEFENDANT’S VIDEO STATEMENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, dismissing the robbery counts, and ordering a new trial on the murder and criminal possession of a weapon counts, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined: (1) conviction of felony murder based upon a confession requires only corroboration of the murder, not the underlying felony (robbery here); (2) the convictions on the two robbery counts were against the weight of the evidence; (3) the judge did not conduct the required “minimal inquiry” when defendant made specific factual complaints about his counsel and asked for new counsel–the error was not cured by the appointment of new counsel right before trial; and (4) defendant’s counsel were ineffective because defendant’s video statement was not redacted to remove reference to defendant’s history of incarceration. The legal discussions are too detailed to fairly summarize here. The facts are:

On October 14, 2013, the victim stumbled home, a fatal knife wound in his back. He was pronounced dead that evening. Two days later, the police interviewed defendant, who provided a video-recorded statement. Defendant admitted that, on the evening of the crime, he was on South Salina Street in the City of Syracuse with three other young men—a cousin of his, a juvenile, and Tony Comer, Jr.—when the victim approached them for the purpose of buying drugs. Comer used the promise of drugs to lure the victim into a cut in the roadway and steal his wallet. When Comer and the victim came out of the cut, the victim was shirtless. Comer was smiling, holding the victim’s torn, white T-shirt. The victim left, shouting that he would come back with a gun and start shooting. Comer told the others that the victim still had $10 on his person, and the juvenile stated that he wanted the victim’s last $10. About 10 or 15 minutes later, the victim returned wearing a sweatshirt, looking for his wallet. Defendant, his cousin, and the juvenile fought the victim. Defendant admitted that, by fighting the victim, he was helping the juvenile to acquire the victim’s last $10 and that, during the fight, defendant stabbed the victim once in the back using a knife that he had concealed in his sleeve. People v Stackhouse, 2021 NY Slip Op 01883, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS RELATING TO THE CODEFENDANT’S POSSESSION AND FIRING OF A WEAPON DURING A ROBBERY AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT WERE BASED UPON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED UPON THE CODEFENDANT’S GETTING INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WITH THE WEAPON WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment (stemming from a robbery by the codefendant) was legally insufficient, and the conviction of another possession of a weapon charge (stemming from the codefendant’s getting into defendant’s car after the robbery) was against the weight of the evidence. Shots were fired by the codefendant during the robbery. The defendant was not with the codefendant during the robbery. Then the codefendant, still in possession of the firearm, got into defendant’s car which was parked a couple of blocks away from the robbery scene and defendant drove away with the codefendant. There was no evidence the defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to commit the robbery:

… [T]here is no evidence that defendant and the codefendant were together earlier on the day of the robbery and shooting, no evidence that defendant had prior knowledge either that the codefendant would be armed that day or that he was intending to rob someone, and no evidence that defendant and the codefendant had an ongoing relationship … . * * *

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant had any knowledge of the codefendant’s possession of a firearm prior to the shooting or that defendant somehow “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided [the codefendant] to engage in” the reckless shooting at the vehicle in which the victim was riding … . * * *

… [A]lthough the evidence that defendant knew who the codefendant was prior to the robbery provides a rational basis for questioning defendant’s credibility, we conclude … that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, finding himself in the presence of a man with a loaded weapon, willingly “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided” the codefendant’s possession of that weapon … , or that defendant “shared a ‘community of purpose’ with [the codefendant]” … . People v Hawkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 01882, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY WHICH OF TWO UNDERLYING OFFENSES IT DESCRIBED AND DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and the waiver of indictment, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it was not clear which of two charged rapes it referred to and there was no language that the plea would be in full satisfaction of all charges:

… [T]he underlying felony complaint alleged four offenses predicated on defendant’s purported violation of three Penal Law provisions: two separate acts of rape in the first degree that occurred in September and October 2016, respectively (Penal Law § 130.35 [4]), an act of criminal sexual act in the first degree that occurred in November 2016 (§ 130.50 [4]), and acts that constituted endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). In contrast, the waiver of indictment listed only a single count to be charged in the SCI [superior court information]: a count of rape in the first degree that allegedly occurred sometime between July and November 2016. Inasmuch as the sole charge in the waiver of indictment and SCI could plausibly refer to either of the acts of rape in the first degree alleged in the felony complaint, the waiver of indictment failed to put defendant on notice of the precise crime for which he was waiving prosecution by indictment and was thus jurisdictionally defective. …

In addition to impeding defendant’s ability to prepare a defense … , the defect in the waiver of indictment—i.e., the indeterminancy of the precise rape offense for which defendant was agreeing to waive indictment—implicates double jeopardy concerns because there was no language in the waiver form, SCI, or at the plea colloquy informing defendant that his plea to one count of rape in the first degree would be in full satisfaction of the offenses alleged in the felony complaint. Consequently, defendant could potentially be subjected to a subsequent prosecution for the offenses not identified in the waiver of indictment or charged in the SCI … . People v Meeks, 2021 NY Slip Op 01925, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE RELATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WAS NOT TRANSFERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly transferred the Article 78 proceeding to the appellate division because there was a quasi-judicial hearing before an administrative law judge at which evidence was taken. The court noted that the aspect of the underlying action which sought a declaratory judgment could not be transferred to the appellate division:

… [A]lthough petitioner also contends that she is entitled to declaratory relief, we do not “have jurisdiction to consider the declaratory judgment action as part of this otherwise properly transferred CPLR article 78 proceeding” … . The transfer of a declaratory judgment action to this Court is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g) … and we “lack[] jurisdiction to consider a declaratory judgment action in the absence of a proper appeal from a court order or judgment” … . We therefore vacate the order insofar as it transferred the declaratory judgment action, sever the declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding, and remit the declaratory judgment action to Supreme Court for further proceedings … . Matter of Blue v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 01924, 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