You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS’ AFFIDAVITS WERE CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE WITH RESPECT TO ONE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS WERE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINIONS IN AREAS OUTSIDE THEIR PARTICULAR FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined plaintiff’s experts’ affidavits were conclusory and speculative with respect to defendant Neurological Associates and defendant Radiology Associates’ experts were qualified to offer their opinions. The complaint alleged plaintiff’s decedent’s brain tumor was not timely detected and treated:

… [P]laintiff’s experts “failed to provide any factual basis for [their] conclusion[s]” that Neurological Associates deviated from the standard of care in surgically resecting the tumor, documenting the resection, and advising decedent as to post-operative radiation and, therefore, the experts’ affidavits “lacked probative force and [were] insufficient as a matter of law to overcome” the motion with respect to those claims … . … [P]laintiff’s submissions are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether any … deviation was a proximate cause of decedent’s injuries …  and offered only conclusory and speculative assertions that earlier detection of recurrence and additional treatment would have produced a different outcome for decedent … . …

… .Radiology Associates’ experts, who were board certified neurosurgeons, were qualified to offer opinions on the emergency department radiology services provided to decedent … , inasmuch as the experts “possessed the requisite skill, training, knowledge and experience to render . . . reliable opinion[s]” in this case … . It is well settled that “[a] physician need not be a specialist in a particular field to qualify as a medical expert and any alleged lack of knowledge in a particular area of expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony” … . Martingano v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 06618, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STOP AND FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after trial and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a concurring opinion, determined the robbery conviction was against the weight of the evidence and the showup identification should have been suppressed. The opinion is comprehensive, well worth study, and cannot be fairly summarized here:

… [T]here is considerable objective evidence supporting defendant’s innocence. Defendant was found standing in a driveway half a mile from the crime scene only seven minutes after it occurred, wearing clothing different from the clothing worn by the gunman. He was not in possession of the fruits of the crime or of a firearm. There was no testimony that he was out of breath or that he displayed other signs of having recently run a distance. To the contrary, his boots were not even laced. The possibility that he changed clothes and hid the items in his companion’s residence across the street was questionable in the first instance given the timing of the events, and was severely undercut by the fact that the police obtained permission to search the residence and did so without finding anything linking defendant to the crime. Furthermore, the police investigation established that a person other than defendant possessed the fruits of the robbery, particularly the victim’s cell phone, and that person’s act in fleeing from the police when the phone alarm sounded was indicative of consciousness of guilt … . Other objective evidence, particularly the dog tracking, established that the gunman never turned west off of Genesee Street toward the place where defendant was found, but continued to run down Genesee Street in a southerly direction. * * *​

The testimony of the officer who initiated this street encounter established that he explored only “one of” several side streets in a residential neighborhood and seized the first young black man in a hooded sweatshirt who he found. It must be plainly stated—the law does not allow the police to stop and frisk any young black man within a half-mile radius of an armed robbery based solely upon a general description.

FROM THE CONCURRENCE:

In my view, reversal is required here solely on the ground that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the showup identification testimony because it was not sufficiently attenuated from the police officer’s unlawful stop and detention of defendant … . People v Miller, 2020 NY Slip Op 06667, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger. The seized evidence should have been suppressed. The officer who stopped the car had heard gunshots, drove in the direction of the shots, passed two intersecting streets, and then saw defendant’s car moving slowly:

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” here … , we conclude that the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct … . As noted, the People established that the police stopped the vehicle less than two minutes after hearing the shots fired, the incident occurred in the early morning hours, the police did not see any pedestrian or vehicular traffic other than the subject vehicle after the shots were fired, and the vehicle was found in proximity to the location of the shots fired. The police, however, were not given a description of the vehicle involved or even informed whether there was a vehicle involved … , the officer did not give any testimony regarding whether he saw any pedestrian or vehicle traffic before hearing the shots fired … , and the vehicle was not fleeing from the area where shots were fired … . Rather, the subject vehicle was simply a vehicle that was in the general vicinity of the area where shots were heard … . As the officer correctly recognized, the police had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to justify a common-law right to inquire … , but they did not have the required reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure of the vehicle. People v Fitts, 2020 NY Slip Op 06654, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

50% FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THE WARNING SIGN WAS NOT VISIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying the Court of Claims, determined there was no basis for apportioning 50% liability to the plaintiff in this wet-floor slip and fail case. The water on the floor was not open and obvious and the warning sign was not visible. Therefore plaintiff was not at fault for walking briskly, looking forward and not using the mats on the floor:

… [P]eople are “bound to see what by the proper use of [their] senses [they] might have seen” and act accordingly … . Here, however, the evidence at trial established that the wet condition of the floor was not open and obvious … and that the sign warning of a wet floor was not readily observable to claimant as he exited the elevator and proceeded, in a group, toward the front door … . As a result, there was nothing that would have alerted claimant to any danger in walking briskly, looking forward, and walking on the bare floor instead of the available mats.

… [W]e remit the matter to the Court of Claims to direct the entry of judgment in favor of claimant in accordance with the apportionment of 100% liability to defendant. Smiley v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06635, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , ,

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence submitted by defendant subcontractor in this Labor Law 241(6), 200 and common law negligence action conclusively established defendant did not have the authority to supervise of control the work which caused plaintiff’s injury. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 was properly granted re the Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action and should have been granted re the common law negligence cause of action:

… [T]he court properly granted defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the Labor Law causes of action because defendant submitted documentary evidence “conclusively establish[ing]” … that, “as a subcontractor, it did not have the authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiff’s injury and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200 . . . or 241 (6)” … . … [T]he documentary evidence belies plaintiff’s allegation that he is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between his employer and defendant … . … [G]iven the documentary evidence submitted in support of defendant’s motion, … the court should have also granted the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the common-law negligence cause of action against defendant … . Eberhardt v G&J Contr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06627, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT USED THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT PUNCHED THE VICTIM WHEN THE VICTIM WAS STANDING, THE VICTIM FELL TO THE SIDEWALK, AND DEFENDANT CONTINUED TO PUNCH THE VICTIM, CAUSING THE VICTIM’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the reckless assault conviction, determined the allegation the defendant used the concrete sidewalk as a dangerous instrument was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [1] [intentional assault], [4] [reckless assault]), arising from an altercation during which he punched the victim in the face approximately three times, causing the victim to fall and hit his head on the concrete sidewalk, then continued to punch the victim while he was lying on the ground unconscious. The victim died as a result of his injuries. * * *

Although a sidewalk or concrete surface can be “used” as a dangerous instrument … , the testimony of the eyewitnesses establishes that the blows to the victim, which were delivered using a cross-wise motion, were not executed in such a way as to establish that defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the victim’s head would have contact with the concrete … . Under the circumstances presented, there is no “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational [person]” could conclude that defendant recklessly used the sidewalk as a dangerous instrument … . People v Desius, 2020 NY Slip Op 06611, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (MORTGAGE PAYMENTS, TAXES, INSURANCE, ETC.) ARE NOT USUALLY AVAILABLE WHEN A BUYER BREACHES A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE SELLER REMAINS IN THE HOUSE AND THOSE COSTS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE BREACH, THE SAME IS NOT TRUE FOR A COMMERCIAL SELLER WHO DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE HOUSE AND MUST MAKE SIMILAR PAYMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined consequential damages were available to the commercial developer in this breach of a real estate purchase agreement case. Usually when a buyer breaches a purchase agreement consequential damages are not available because the seller remains in the house and the mortgage and other costs of living there have nothing to do with the breach. However, where, as here, the seller does not live in the house, the expenses association with the maintenance and care of the home after the breach are financial losses:

As a general rule, consequential damages are not available to a seller of residential real estate when the purchaser breaches the contract … . That is because, typically, the seller “retain[s] ownership, use and enjoyment of the premises,” and it cannot be said that the “mortgage interest expenses, repairs or utilities paid postbreach” are proximately caused by the breach … .

Where, however, the seller is a commercial developer, the seller does not live in the home and never intends to do so. Upon the purchaser’s breach, the developer begins to incur costs that reduce the profit margin. Such carrying costs may include, among other things, maintenance and utility costs as well as real property taxes. Whereas the ordinary residential seller, by living in the home after the purchaser’s breach, receives value for the carrying costs until the subsequent sale, the commercial developer does not receive such value. Instead, the carrying costs are nothing but a financial loss. Chrisanntha, Inc. v deBaptiste, 2020 NY Slip Op 06607, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE, THE COURT’S ROLE, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF A PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR’S ROLE, EXPLAINED; THE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to compel arbitration should have been granted. Among several substantive issues (not summarized here) the court explained the difference between determining the validity of the arbitration agreement, the court’s role, and interpreting a provision in the agreement, the arbitrator’s role:

The only challenge … that plaintiff could raise in opposition to that part of defendants’ motion seeking to compel arbitration is whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, which is for a court to determine … . The challenge must be directed “specifically to the agreement to arbitrate” … . The validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements is governed by the rules applicable to contracts generally … . “[A] party may resist enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate on any basis that could provide a defense to or grounds for the revocation of any contract, including fraud, unconscionability, duress, overreaching conduct, violation of public policy, or lack of contractual capacity” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to raise any challenge to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. … [P]laintiff relied on a provision in the arbitration agreement that stated that it would not apply “to any employee represented by a labor organization … ” which plaintiff contends shows that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate. … [P]laintiff’s contention conflates the issue of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, which is for a court to decide, with the issue of the arbitrability of the dispute, which is for the arbitrator to determine. The arbitrability issue includes the interpretation of any contract provision, such as the provision exempting union employees from the arbitration agreement under certain circumstances … . Basile v Riley, 2020 NY Slip Op 06600, Fourth De[pt 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, THE DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS WERE DISCRETIONARY AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, AND THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION BASED UPON THE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FROM ABUSE BY FAMILY MEMBERS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s and the sheriff’s motions for summary judgment in this wrongful death case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendants were aware that plaintiff’s decedent was being abused by her half brother and mother and did not act to protect her. The Fourth Department held: (1) there was no special relationship between the county and plaintiff; (2) governmental immunity protected the defendants because their actions involved the exercise of discretion; (3) there is no cause of action in New York for negligent investigation or prosecution:

“[A]t the heart of most of these ‘special duty’ cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality’s voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced him [or her] either to relax his [or her] own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection” … . Here, [plaintiff’s decedent’s brother] did not in fact relax his own vigilance inasmuch as he made two follow-up calls to the … caseworker asking her to reopen the investigation, and he was not induced to forego other avenues of relief … . * * *

Defendants established that the actions of the … caseworkers “resulted from discretionary decision-making” … . While the caseworkers may have been negligent, they were exercising their discretion throughout the investigations … . * * *

… ‘[A] claim for negligent training in investigative procedures [against the Sheriff] is akin to a claim for negligent investigation or prosecution, which is not actionable in New York’ ” … . Further, inasmuch as the allegations of negligent hiring, training, and supervision against the Sheriff all involved conduct requiring the exercise of the Sheriff’s discretion and judgment, the Sheriff established his entitlement to the governmental function immunity defense … . Maldovan v County of Erie, 2020 NY Slip Op 06595, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH A NARROW PASSAGEWAY; THE POLICE WERE NOT IN PURSUIT AND THE HANDGUN DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the police, who followed defendant in a police car as he walked through a narrow passageway (a cut-through) between two streets, were not in pursuit of defendant. Therefore the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly seized:

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer responding to the sound of gunshots observed a person walking towards him a few blocks away from the location of the incident. The officer lost sight of the person before he was able to speak with him to determine whether the person had heard the gunshots, but he relayed over the police radio a generic physical description of the person he had encountered and that person’s location. Shortly thereafter, a second police officer encountered defendant not far from the radioed position. The second officer engaged defendant in a brief conversation from her patrol vehicle, after which defendant entered a nearby cut-through—i.e., a pedestrian pathway that connected two streets. When defendant first entered the cut-through, the second officer did not consider him a suspect in the shooting and he was not engaged in any unlawful activity. Nonetheless, the second officer, still in her patrol vehicle and now accompanied by another officer in a separate patrol vehicle, followed defendant along the pathway, maintaining a distance of about five feet from defendant. The cut-through was so narrow at one point that the officers would not have been able to open the doors of their patrol vehicles. When defendant reached the end of the cut-through, he removed a handgun from his pocket and ran. As he ran, defendant discarded the handgun and was thereafter arrested. * * *

The police did not activate their vehicles’ overhead lights or sirens, exit their vehicles, or significantly limit defendant’s freedom of movement along the pedestrian path … . Indeed, defendant remained free to keep walking down the path, even if at one point on the path he could not have turned around and traveled in the opposite direction. People v Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 06594, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

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