You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY THE TRAFFIC STOP AND DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AT THE TIME DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR; THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AND THE COCAINE SEIZED FROM HIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the convictions related to statement which should have been suppressed, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop and did not have probable to handcuff the defendant, a de facto arrest, when he got out of the car. Therefore the statements which led to the search and seizure of cocaine, as well as the seized cocaine, should have been suppressed:

Inasmuch as the officer conducting the surveillance and directing the stop of defendant “did not see what the defendant and [the alleged buyer] exchanged, could not see if one of the [participants] gave the other something in return for something else, and did not see money pass between the two [individuals],” we conclude that the officers detaining defendant lacked reasonable suspicion to do so … .

… Although the use of handcuffs does not automatically transform a defendant’s detention into a de facto arrest … , such use must be justified by some additional circumstances, such as a threat of evasive conduct … . …

… [T]here was no testimony that the officer who handcuffed defendant “reasonably suspect[ed] that he [was] in danger of physical injury by virtue of [defendant] being armed” … . “[T]he test for determining whether a defendant is in custody or has been subjected to a de facto arrest is ‘what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant’s position’ ” … . People v Hernandez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05321, Fourth Dept 9-30-20

 

, ,

THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, agreeing with the Second Department, determined the mere presence of reinstatement clause in a mortgage, which allows a borrower who has missed payments to pay the amount of the missed payments and resume monthly payments, does not affect or impede the acceleration of the debt when a foreclosure action is brought. Therefore the foreclosure action at issue was time-barred:

The mortgage is a uniform instrument issued by Fannie Mae, among others, for use in New York State and contains several provisions that are relevant on appeal. Section 22 (acceleration provision) permits the lender to require immediate payment of the loan in full upon the borrower’s default, provided certain conditions are met. Section 19 (reinstatement provision) grants a borrower in default the right to effectively de-accelerate the maturity of the mortgage debt by paying in full the past due amount, thereby returning the loan to its pre-default status. * * *

… [W]e conclude that the mortgage’s reinstatement provision does not in any way affect or impede acceleration of the full mortgage debt. The reinstatement provision is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the mortgage’s acceleration provision, which governs when Fannie Mae could exercise its option to accelerate the full debt … . Further, the language of the reinstatement provision “indicates that [Fannie Mae’s] right to accelerate the entire debt may be exercised before the [borrower’s] rights under the reinstatement provision . . . are exercised or extinguished” … . Thus, in effect, the reinstatement provision merely “gives the borrower the contractual option to de-accelerate the mortgage when certain conditions are met” … —which presupposes that an acceleration has already occurred. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Tortora, 2020 NY Slip Op 05410, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM THE DECISION WHETHER TO TESTIFY WAS HIS TO MAKE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant motion to vacate his conviction alleging defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him the decision whether to testify was defendant’s to make:

… [T]he court erred in denying his motion without a hearing with respect to whether defense counsel fulfilled his duty of advising defendant that his decision to testify was ultimately his own, not defense counsel’s, to make (see People v Cosby, 82 AD3d 63, 66 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). Defendant has made a proper showing for a hearing by asserting a viable legal basis for the motion, substantiated by his own unrefuted sworn allegations and other evidentiary submissions … , and neither the mandatory denial provisions of CPL 440.10 (2) nor the permissive denial provisions of CPL 440.10 (3) apply to this case … . Cosby, relied on by both the court and the People in support of denying the motion, is distinguishable from this case inasmuch as a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5) was held in Cosby, thereby permitting us to determine on the merits that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and, consequently, that his right to a fair trial was not seriously compromised … . No such determination on the merits can be made on the record before us. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5) on that part of defendant’s motion. People v Mirabella, 2020 NY Slip Op 05388, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine should not have been granted in this automobile accident case:

A white van that was exiting the Parkway proceeded to the stop sign where the off-ramp intersects with Greenleaf Road and then made a sudden left-hand turn in front of the vehicle that defendant was operating. Defendant tried to avoid the van by braking and swerving to the right. In doing so, he maneuvered his vehicle the wrong way onto the off-ramp, where it collided with the driver’s side of the vehicle operated by plaintiff. …

“In general, the issues whether a qualifying emergency existed and whether the driver’s response thereto was reasonable are for the trier of fact” … , and this case is no exception to the general rule. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was faced with a qualifying sudden and unexpected emergency, we conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion of establishing that defendant’s conduct was appropriate under the circumstances … . Schwallie v Farnan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05316, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

THE APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET; THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS HELD BUT SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE A RULING; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED AGAIN FOR THE RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, holding the appeal in abeyance, had sent the matter back for a reconstruction hearing on whether defense counsel consented to annotations on the verdict sheet. The hearing was held but Supreme Court did not make a ruling. So the matter was remitted for that purpose:

We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court “to determine, following a hearing if necessary, whether defense counsel consented to the annotated verdict sheet” … . Upon remittal, the court convened a reconstruction hearing, heard testimony of the parties’ trial counsel, and closed the hearing without making any determination. That was error. The intent of our prior decision was for the court to make a determination, not merely to conduct a hearing … . It is of course better for the hearing court, which has the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony, to make the determination following a reconstruction hearing, particularly where, as here, witness credibility is at issue … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether defense counsel consented to the annotated verdict sheet … . People v Wilson, 2020 NY Slip Op 05385, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING PLEA DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE FOR A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION; NO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; APPELLATE COURT HAS POWER TO MODIFY A LEGAL SENTENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s sentence, noted that a waiver of appeal at the underlying plea proceeding did not prohibit the appeal of the severity of the sentence for a subsequent violation of probation. The court further noted there is no preservation requirement for the appeal of an excessive sentence:

… [E]ven if defendant executed a valid waiver of the right to appeal at the underlying plea proceeding, it would not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed following his violation of probation … . Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence is not subject to a preservation requirement … . “A claim that a sentence is excessive is, by definition … , addressed to this Court’s interest of justice jurisdiction, and does not need to be preserved as a question of law … . Contrary to the People’s further contention, in reviewing that challenge, “it is inappropriate for this Court to address whether the sentencing court abused its discretion” … . Rather, this Court “has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range,” and such “sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” … . We agree with defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe under the circumstances of this case, and we therefore modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice to a determinate term of imprisonment of five years … . People v Kibler, 2020 NY Slip Op 05365, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS EMPLOYER, UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defamation cause of action against defendant Polit and Polit’s employer, ADP, should not have been dismissed. Polit allegedly posted defamatory statements on defendant-restaurant’s Facebook page on behalf of Polit’s employer:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages arising from an allegedly defamatory statement authored by defendant David Thomas Polit and published by him to the Facebook page of plaintiff Crave L & D, LLC (Crave), a restaurant. Polit’s statement advised potential customers to stay away from the restaurant, alleging, among other things, health code violations, mistreatment of staff, and criminal activity. …

… [W]e conclude that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the existence of respondeat superior liability through … allegations, including, among other things, that Polit visited Crave for the sole purpose of soliciting plaintiffs to enter into a payroll service agreement with ADP, that Polit represented himself as ADP’s district manager and requested Crave’s business and payroll records in order to provide Crave with a quote for ADP’s services, that the post was based on Polit’s review of those records, that ADP encouraged Polit to use social media in connection with his sales work, that Polit published the post during regular business hours, and that ADP was aware of Polit’s use of Facebook and authorized his conduct. Elizabeth Votsis & Crave L&D, LLC v ADP, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05311,  Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING A LIMOUSINE BUS WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ADDRESS ON APPEAL THE ASPECT OF THE DECISION WHICH DISMISSED THE FAILURE-TO-PROVIDE-SEATBELTS CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE ANY CHALLENGE TO THAT ASPECT OF THE DISMISSAL WAS ABANDONED BY PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint in this traffic accident case, noted that the plaintiffs’ failure to address an aspect of the decision granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment constituted an abandonment of any challenge to that portion of the decision. The motion court had dismissed the complaint in its entirety including plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging defendants were negligent in not providing seatbelts for the limousine in which plaintiff was a passenger. However the seatbelt ruling was not challenged by the plaintiffs on appeal. Therefore Supreme Court’s dismissal of the seatbelt cause of action remained in effect:

Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on application of the emergency doctrine. ” ‘The existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver’s response thereto generally constitute issues of fact’ ” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “whether the emergency doctrine precludes liability presents a question of fact and, therefore, summary judgment for defendants . . . was inappropriate” … .

We note, however, that the court also granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts on the ground that defendants were under no duty to do so. Plaintiffs failed to brief any argument with respect to the dismissal of that claim, thereby abandoning any challenge to that part of the order … . We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint except insofar as the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts. VanEpps v Mancuso, 2020 NY Slip Op 05359, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

PETITIONERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A USE VARIANCE BEFORE APPLYING FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE THEIR RESIDENCE AS AN AIRBNB, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA’s) ruling that petitioners would have to obtain a use variance before applying for a special use permit to operate their residence as an Airbnb rental lacked a rational basis:

Town Code § 280-31 provides that the uses and structures permitted in the R-1 District, where petitioners’ residence is located, include the principal uses and structures permitted under section 280-24, which governs R-E Districts, except those specified in subdivisions four and five of the six enumerated subdivisions in that section. The sixth subdivision allows “[t]he following uses by special use permit authorized by the Planning Board: . . . (b) Bed-and-breakfast establishments and tourist homes” … . A plain reading of sections 280-24 and 280-31 therefore unambiguously demonstrates that special uses are permitted principal uses, subject to authoriztion by the Planning Board … . …

… [W]e conclude that the Town Code establishes that special uses are permitted uses in specific districts, but the burden is on an applicant for a special use permit to show that the proposed use is allowable within that district by establishing that the use has the requisite individual characteristics … . Our interpretation of the Town Code is supported by Town Law§ 274-b (1), which defines a special use permit as “an authorization of a particular land use which is permitted in a zoning ordinance or local law, subject to requirements imposed by such zoning ordinance or local law to assure that the proposed use is in harmony with such zoning ordinance or local law and will not adversely affect the neighborhood if such requirements are met.” Matter of Churchill v Town of Hamburg, 2020 NY Slip Op 05356, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE STRANGULATION COUNT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION OF THE “STUPOR” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court on a People’s appeal and reinstating the strangulation count, determined the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to charge strangulation. County Court had reduced the charge to criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. County Court ruled the People had not presented evidence sufficient to support the theory the strangulation caused “stupor” citing the People’s failure to define the term:

In order to sustain the charge of strangulation in the second degree against defendant, the People were required to present to the grand jury legally sufficient evidence of the following three elements: (1) that defendant applied pressure on the throat or neck of the alleged victim; (2) that defendant did so with the intent to impede the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the alleged victim; and (3) that defendant thereby caused stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment to the alleged victim … .

… [T]he prosecutor’s instructions to the grand jury comported with the statute and mirrored the pattern criminal jury instructions … , and we conclude that the failure of the prosecutor to offer a definition of the term “stupor” did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceedings or potentially prejudice defendant … .

… [T]he alleged victim testified before the grand jury that defendant “put both of his hands around [her] neck and choked [her] until [she] could barely breathe anymore” and “was starting to lose consciousness.” She was “pushed up against the wall and the door” and felt “[v]ery light-headed and kind of like—like there was a buzzing in [her] head and everything was starting to turn purple in [her] vision before—by the time [the alleged victim] got him to let go.”  People v Ruvalcaba, 2020 NY Slip Op 05354, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

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