You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS ONE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; THEREFORE THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging defendant doctor caused the bowel perforation should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address it:

The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert addressed defendant’s conduct only with respect to the claims that he failed to diagnose and treat the bowel perforation intraoperatively and failed to timely and properly treat the bowel perforation postoperatively. Plaintiff’s expert acknowledged that bowel perforation is a known complication from this type of surgery. Thus, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the claims that defendant negligently caused the bowel perforation … . We therefore conclude that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to those claims, and we modify the order accordingly. Bristol v Bunn, 2020 NY Slip Op 07773, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

,

CLAIMANT’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED IN A MULTIVEHICLE ACCIDENT IN WHITE OUT CONDITIONS ON A STATE HIGHWAY; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT NOTICE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION AND PROXIMATE CAUSE (NO SNOW FENCE) WERE RAISED; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this “white out” traffic accident case should not have been granted. Claimants argued the state had notice of a recurring white=out condition caused by blowing snow on a portion of a state highway. Claimant’s decedent died in a multivehicle accident in white out conditions:

… [T]he claimants raised a triable issue of fact with respect to whether defendant had actual knowledge of “an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition in the area of the accident” … . Notably, claimants submitted a Highway Safety Investigation Report that was prepared by an employee of defendant in December 2008. The report states that it was written in response to the subject accident with the purpose of “evaluat[ing] the frequency and potential for similar accidents and evaluate potential countermeasures.” The report compared the number and severity of the accidents on that portion of highway to those occurring elsewhere on I-390, and noted that, “[a]lthough the number of accidents in the study area was lower, the severity of the accidents was [greater].” The report also noted that “[s]everal factors exist which increase the degree of risk of poor visibility and drifting due to blowing snow in this section.” Such factors included the large, flat airport property next to the highway, the “abrupt, topographic change due to the proximity of the airport runway and former Pennsylvania railroad embankment,” and the section’s slight reverse curve. The data thus suggested that “snow on the road [was] an issue to be addressed in this area” and that, although the number of accidents was not extraordinarily high, “their occurrence was sufficiently sensational, disquieting to the public, and disruptive to the traveling public and [defendant] to justify making more than ordinary efforts to prevent them.” Furthermore, the deposition testimony of employees of defendant established that, for years prior to the accident, blowing and drifting snow had been an issue on that section of I-390.

We also agree with claimants that the court erred in determining that defendant established that the lack of a snow fence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Klepanchuk v State of N.Y. Dept. of Transp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07766, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT DISMISSED A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department dismissed the second degree murder count as a lesser included count of first degree murder. People v Beard, 2020 NY Slip Op 07763, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE APPEAL WAIVERS WERE NOT EXECUTED UNTIL SENTENCING AND WERE THEREFORE INVALID; ARGUMENTS ABOUT A LATE FILED OMNIBUS MOTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE OMNIBUS MOTIONS DID NOT SURVIVE THE GUILTY PLEAS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the waivers of appeal were invalid and defendant’s arguments the court should have considered a late omnibus motion and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file omnibus motions did not survive the guilty pleas:

The written waivers do not establish valid waivers because they were not executed until sentencing … and, even assuming, arguendo, that the written waivers had been executed at the time of the pleas, the court “failed to confirm that [defendant] understood the contents of the written waivers” … . …

Defendant contends in appeal No. 1 that the court abused its discretion in refusing to entertain, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown … , that part of his untimely omnibus motion seeking a Huntley hearing. We conclude, however, that defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeited appellate review of that contention. …

To the extent that defendant further contends in all three appeals that his first attorney’s failure to file a timely omnibus motion constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude under these circumstances that defendant’s contention likewise does not survive his guilty pleas. People v Parker, 2020 NY Slip Op 07747, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

,

AN EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED, ALLOWING TESTIMONY DESCRIBING THE CONTENTS OF DESTROYED VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined an exception to the best evidence rule applied and testimony about the contents of a destroyed video surveillance was properly admitted in this grand larceny case:

Defendant appeals from a judgment … arising from the theft of wireless speakers valued in excess of $3,000 from a Target store … . Prior to trial, the People moved in limine for permission to introduce testimony from the store’s asset protection team leader (APT leader) regarding the contents of destroyed video surveillance footage that had depicted the incident. * * *

The best evidence rule “simply requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven” …  “The rule protects against fraud, perjury, and inaccurate recollection by allowing the [factfinder] to judge a document by its own literal terms” … . “Under a long-recognized exception to the best evidence rule, secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence . . . and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . The proponent of the secondary evidence “has the heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original. Thus, as a threshold matter, the trial court must be satisfied that the proffered evidence is authentic and correctly reflects the contents of the original before ruling on its admissibility” … . * * *

… [T]he People met their burden of establishing that the APT leader’s testimony regarding the unpreserved footage was a reliable and accurate portrayal of the contents of that footage … . People v Jackson, 2020 NY Slip Op 07744, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

A WHEEL CAME OFF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK CAUSING A FREAK ACCIDENT INVOLVING TWO OTHER VEHICLES RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A DRIVER; THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AT MOST, DEFENDANT FAILED TO PERCEIVE THE RISK CREATED BY A NOISY WHEEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction, determined the evidence was against the weight of the evidence. Apparently, a wheel came off defendant’s truck, another truck hit the wheel and overturned on a car, killing the driver:

The testimony at trial established that defendant came into possession of the pickup truck several weeks before the accident, but that its last valid inspection was three years before the accident. Although the People established that the pickup truck had a forged inspection sticker, there was no evidence that defendant knew it was forged. Several witnesses testified that, in the three days preceding the accident, the pickup truck was making loud grinding noises and that, either the day before the accident or the day of the accident, defendant asked a person with mechanical experience what that person thought might be the issue. That person opined that the noise was likely being caused by a wheel or the brakes.

An inspection of the driver’s side wheel and truck after the accident established some significant problems with the wheel, and witnesses testified that the existence of problems would have been noticeable and would have created issues with steering. The testimony also established, however, that the severity of the problems could not have been known to the operator unless the wheel was removed from the truck. * * *

At most, the evidence established that defendant failed to perceive a risk, which does establish criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Pinnock, 2020 NY Slip Op 06884, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS USURY, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION FINANCED THE SALE OF JEWELRY OVER MANY MONTHS, MARKETING THE SALES AS A WAY FOR CONSUMERS TO IMPROVE THEIR CREDIT; THE MAJORITY HELD THE BUSINESS MET THE DEFINITION OF A “CREDIT SERVICES BUSINESS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 458-H (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the cause of action which alleged defendants operated a “credit services business” within the meaning of General Business Law 458-h. The defendants financed the purchase of jewelry, claiming that such financing was a means of improving consumers’ credit record:

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging various claims for usury, common-law and statutory fraud, and deceptive business practices. …

A “credit services business” is defined as “any person who sells, provides, or performs, or represents that he can or will sell, provide or perform, a service for the express or implied purpose of improving a consumer’s credit record, history, or rating or providing advice or assistance to a consumer with regard to the consumer’s credit record history or rating in return for the payment of a fee” (§ 458-b [1]). According to the complaint, defendants “represent[]” that they “provide” a “service” to consumers—specifically, financing the purchase of jewelry—and defendants market such financing as a means “of improving [the] consumer’s credit record.” Put simply, defendants allegedly offer consumers the option of paying for jewelry over many months, and defendants allegedly advertise that financing option as a mechanism to improve the consumer’s credit. In exchange for that financing—i.e., the “service” contemplated by section 458-b (1)—defendants allegedly charge interest. Such interest, we conclude, constitutes a “fee” within the meaning of section 458-b (1). Thus, contrary to the court’s determination and the view of our dissenting colleague, the complaint sufficiently alleges that defendants’ business satisfies the statutory definition of a “credit services business” … . People v Harris Originals of Ny, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06883, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE THE DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court on the People’s appeal, determined the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds because the People demonstrated the exercise of due diligence in attempting to locate the absent defendant:

In computing the time within which the People must be ready for trial, the court must exclude, inter alia, the period of delay resulting from defendant’s absence (see CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]). “A defendant must be considered absent whenever his location is unknown and he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution, or his location cannot be determined by due diligence” (id.). …

… [W]e conclude that the People established that they exercised due diligence in attempting to locate defendant during the time period at issue at the hearing. Law enforcement officers routinely checked computer databases, social media outlets, criminal history reports and information from other government agencies to attempt to identify locations where defendant might be located. In addition, officers investigated all of the addresses associated with defendant to varying degrees, speaking with maintenance workers, neighbors, tenants, and defendant’s mother. In attempting to conduct subsequent interviews with defendant’s mother, law enforcement officers learned that she no longer resided at the same address. Law enforcement officers also contacted and spoke with all of defendant’s known employers. Although law enforcement officers did not conduct a full investigation of one address that appeared on one credit agency report, one of the officers testified at the hearing that credit reports were not reliable because “anyone . . . could go apply for a credit card online today and write [any address] on the application.” Without any corroboration of defendant’s affiliation with that address, the officer did not investigate beyond driving to the address and verifying that it was a commercial and retail building. Ultimately … the officers’ periodic database searches yielded a potential address in Georgia.

“[N]otwithstanding the fact that greater efforts could have been undertaken”… , we conclude that the People established that they exercised the requisite due diligence in attempting to locate defendant during the time period at issue … . People v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 06881, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident was properly granted. The defendant, in his deposition, claimed he was unable to stop at the red light because the floor mat had rolled up under the brake pedal. The plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The majority considered defendant’s testimony hearsay and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The dissenters argued the hearsay rule did not apply because plaintiff submitted the deposition and thereby raised triable issues of fact, or, in the alternative, waived any objection to the hearsay:

Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendant was negligent in his operation of the vehicle inasmuch as defendant failed to stop at a red light … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies here … . The emergency doctrine provides that, “when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the [driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . However, “[t]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . Stated differently, “it is settled law that the emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … . Further, although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is not by itself sufficient to defeat such a motion … . Here, defendant testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, he was not sure why he could not apply his brakes. He learned after the accident from a body shop mechanic that “[t]he floor pad was rolled up underneath the brake pedal.” He also testified that the floor mat sliding underneath his brakes was “the only reason [he could] think of” for his inability to brake. In view of that deposition testimony, we conclude that defendant’s reliance on the emergency doctrine was based solely on hearsay and speculation and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact whether that doctrine applies. The record includes no affidavit or deposition testimony from defendant’s mechanic. Watson v Peschel, 2020 NY Slip Op 06880, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDITION VISITATION UPON FATHER’S PARTICIPATION IN MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING; THEREFORE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT ORDER HAD BEEN VIOLATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the motion to dismiss father’s petition to modify custody and visitation shoud not have been granted. The motion to dismiss argued father had not complied with the court’s order conditioning visitation on participation in mental health counseling. The court did not have the authority to issue that order:

… [A]lthough a court may include a directive to obtain counseling as a component of a custody or visitation order, the court does not have the authority to order such counseling as a prerequisite to custody or visitation” … . Family Court therefore “lacked the authority to condition any future application for modification of [the father’s] visitation on [his] participation in mental health counseling” … . Matter of Lane v Rawleigh, 2020 NY Slip Op 06926, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

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