You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

ALTHOUGH THE ORDER ADDRESSING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS ISSUED AFTER JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUBSUMED IN THE JUDGMENT, THE ORDER IS APPEALABLE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, overruling precedent, determined that an order issued after judgment, here an order on a motion to set aside the verdict, can be appealed:

… [W]e must consider whether a party may appeal directly from an order denying a CPLR 4404 motion when that order was entered after entry of a final judgment. In some of our previous cases, we have concluded that such an order is “subsumed in the judgment and the right to appeal directly therefrom terminated” (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v Campagna, 233 AD2d 954, 955 [4th Dept 1996] …). We now conclude that the rule set forth in Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. is inconsistent with the statutory framework and with Court of Appeals precedent, and should no longer be followed. Accordingly, we hold that an order otherwise appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a]) entered after the entry of a final judgment is not subsumed in the judgment, but is independently appealable.

An appeal may be taken as of right from an order that, inter alia, “involves some part of the merits,” “affects a substantial right,” or “refuses a new trial” (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [iii]-[v]). If, however, a court enters an “intermediate order” and subsequently enters a final judgment, the Court of Appeals has held that the entry of the judgment terminates the right to appeal from the order … . Although the right of appeal terminates, the order is not beyond review. There is a statutory remedy. An appeal from the final judgment “brings up for review,” inter alia, “any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” or “any order denying a new trial” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). Thus, CPLR 5501 (a) salvages the ability of aggrieved parties to seek review of the intermediate order on appeal.

On the other hand, orders entered after the entry of a final judgment cannot conceptually merge into the judgment. The rule in Aho [39 NY2d 241] applies only to an “intermediate order” … , which the Court of Appeals has defined as an order “made after the commencement of the action and before the entry of judgment” … . Consequently, inasmuch as the right of appeal from a post-judgment order remains in effect, we conclude that the appeal from the order here is properly before us. Knapp v Finger Lakes NY, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03353, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT; THE MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE FOR DELAY WAS NOT ADEQUATE, THE DEFECT DID NOT REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The court noted that the medical records submitted for the first time in a reply were properly considered because the respondents addressed the relevant issues at oral argument. Both the majority and the dissent noted that the excuse for failure to timely file the notice of claim was inadequate but that defect did not require denial of the application. The majority found claimant demonstrated respondents were not prejudiced by the delay. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s finding that the medical records demonstrated respondents had timely notice of the nature of the claim:

… [W]e reject the contention of respondents and the dissent that it is inappropriate under the circumstances of this case to consider the medical records submitted by claimant for the first time in his reply papers. In general, ” [t]he function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds [or evidence] for the motion [or application]’ ” … . “This rule, however, is not inflexible, and a court, in the exercise of its discretion, may consider a claim or evidence offered for the first time in reply where the offering party’s adversaries responded to the newly presented claim or evidence” … . …

… “[T]he medical records . . . evince that [respondents’] medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted an[ ] injury on [claimant]’ ” … . The medical records indicate that, following the surgical skin graft procedure, claimant developed swelling beneath the dressings that became constrictive of blood flow to the leg and ultimately caused necrosis, and that respondents’ medical staff, for various reasons, had failed to recognize the ischemic nature of the leg and claimant’s development of compartment syndrome, thereby eventually necessitating partial amputation of the leg … . We thus conclude that respondents timely acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Dusch v Erie County Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 03351, Fourth Dept 7-12-20

 

,

COCAINE IS NOT DANGEROUS CONTRABAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE FIRST DEGREE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE SECOND DEGREE (PROHIBITING ‘CONTRABAND,’ AS OPPOSED TO ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND’) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a two-justice concurrence and a dissent, determined cocaine does not meet the statutory definition of dangerous contraband within the meaning of the offense of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The defendant’s conviction, based upon the possession of three baggies of cocaine, was reduced to promoting prison contraband in the second degree:

“A person is guilty of promoting prison contraband in the first degree when . . . [that person] knowingly and unlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” (Penal Law § 205.25 [1]). “Dangerous contraband” is defined as any contraband that is “capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein” (§ 205.00 [4]). “[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . ” [W]eapons, tools, explosives and similar articles likely to facilitate escape or cause disorder, damage or physical injury are examples of dangerous contraband,’ ” whereas an ” alcoholic beverage is an example of [ordinary] contraband’ ” … . Drugs, unlike weapons, are not inherently dangerous, and thus general penological concerns about the drug possessed that “are not addressed to the specific use and effects of the particular drug are insufficient to meet the definition of dangerous contraband” … . * * *

Central to our dissenting colleague’s analysis is a distinction between narcotic and non-narcotic controlled substances. The unstated premise is that cocaine is classified as a narcotic because it is inherently dangerous. We respectfully disagree with that premise. Cocaine may be unhealthy, but it is not a narcotic, at least not from a scientific, medical, or pharmacological viewpoint … . People v Simmons, 2020 NY Slip Op 03350, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , , , ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM A NONFINAL ORDER, HERE ORDERS WHICH DID NOT RESOLVE THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES; IN A SUCCESSFUL SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined no appeal lies from a nonfinal order and, in a successful shareholders’ derivative action, the corporation is liable for attorney’s fees. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant limited liability company was formed to develop a residential subdivision. The action alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and sought dissolution of the LLC:

… “[A]lthough all of the substantive issues between the parties were resolved, the order was facially nonfinal, since it left pending the assessment of attorneys’ fees—a matter that plainly required further judicial action of a nonministerial nature” … . Further, plaintiffs’ “request for attorneys’ fees was an integral part of each of the asserted causes of action rather than a separate cause of action of its own,” and therefore that issue cannot be implicitly severed from the other issues … . Thus, the order … does not constitute a ” final order’ ” within the meaning of CPLR 5501 (a) (1) and does not bring up for our review any prior non-final order … . * * *

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and disbursements in his status as a derivative plaintiff acting on the LLC’s behalf and in awarding such fees and disbursements … . “The basis for an award of attorneys’ fees in a shareholders’ derivative suit is to reimburse the plaintiff for expenses incurred on the corporation’s behalf . . . . Those costs should be paid by the corporation, which has benefited from the plaintiff’s efforts and which would have borne the costs had it sued in its own right” … . Thus, plaintiff’s success as a derivative plaintiff is not an acceptable basis for an award of attorneys’ fees and disbursements against defendant individually. Howard v Pooler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03347, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACTION BY A TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ON THE EQUAL PAY ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND CERTAIN NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Equal Pay Act (EPA) cause of action and certain NYS Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) causes of action should not have been dismissed in this sex and disability discrimination action brought by a tenured associate professor:

With respect to the cause of action alleging violations of the EPA, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the difference in pay between plaintiff and a less senior male colleague who performed similar work under similar conditions “is due to a factor other than sex” … . * * *

With respect to the causes of action for sexual discrimination under Title VII and the NYSHRL, we conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant’s challenged actions were “based upon nondiscriminatory reasons,” and thus summary judgment is precluded on those causes of action … . Indeed, defendant offered inconsistent and shifting justifications for the pay disparity … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the sixth cause of action, alleging violations of the NYSHRL based on unlawful retaliation … . To establish a claim for unlawful retaliation under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … . …  [I]ssues of fact exist whether defendant unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff after she complained of gender discrimination when it required her to retain her position as the undergraduate coordinator while at the same time maintaining her regular course load … . Nordenstam v State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. of Envtl. Science & Forestry, 2020 NY Slip Op 03346, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after a street stop should have been granted and vacated defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant was charged with two burglaries on different days. Defendant pled guilty to one of the burglaries in satisfaction of both. Defendant appealed the denial of the suppression motion related to the street stop. The Fourth Department did not reach the merits of the appeal because the suppression motion did not involve the offense to which defendant pled guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because of its potential effect on the decision to plead guilty in satisfaction of both charges:

A majority of this Court concluded that ” the judgment of conviction on appeal here did not ensue from the denial of the motion to suppress [relating solely to count two] and the latter [wa]s, therefore, not reviewable’ pursuant to CPL 710.70 (2)” … . The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that “the Appellate Division may review an order denying a motion to suppress evidence where, as here, the contested evidence pertained to a count—contained in the same accusatory instrument as the count defendant pleaded guilty to—that was satisfied by the plea” … . The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court to rule on defendant’s suppression contention.

Upon remittitur, we now agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized as a result of his unlawful detention on October 3, 2014 … . We further agree with defendant that such error was not harmless under the circumstances (see id. at 1424). We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant on October 3, 2014, and remit the matter to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v Holz, 2020 NY Slip Op 03345, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined respondent’s designating petition should not have been invalidated based on allegations of fraud in acknowledging signatures:

… [T]he court based its determination to invalidate the designating petition on the testimony of a single signatory, who stated that although respondent was the subscribing witness on the petition that she signed, her signature was actually witnessed by a younger man of a different race. While such evidence may warrant invalidation of a designating petition … , cross-examination of the signatory—during which she acknowledged signing four City Court petitions, including one for an individual whose description was similar to that of respondent—called her testimony on direct examination into question. …

… [W]e conclude that respondent’s apparent failure to administer to one signatory “an oath . . . calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs’ ” … did not, on its own, constitute evidence of fraud requiring invalidation of his designating petition … . Matter of Monto v Zeigler, 2020 NY Slip Op 02753, Fourth Dept 5-14-20

 

,

DENIAL OF FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, held that the denial of father’s petition for a change in custody (from mother to father) was not supported by the evidence:

Here, the only factor that weighs in favor of respondent mother is the existing custody arrangement, which had been in place for a lengthy period of time … . Although the subject child has a brother at the mother’s house, that is not a factor that favors the mother because “both parties have other children, [and thus] an award of [primary residential] custody to either party would necessarily separate the child at issue from some of her siblings” … .

The remaining factors favor awarding primary residential custody to the father. During the time that the mother had primary residential custody, the child performed poorly at school and experienced a significant increase in her depression … . Additionally, due to the mother’s work schedule, the child was required to arise before 5:00 a.m. and to thereafter be taken to a relative’s house, where the child stayed for two hours before going to school. Also, the mother is admittedly unable to assist the child with school work, or to schedule or attend the child’s medical and mental health counseling appointments. The father, in contrast, is able to provide a more stable home for the child and is currently helping the child with those measures.

Furthermore, the child expressed a desire to reside with the father. Although the “[c]ourt is . . . not required to abide by the wishes of a child to the exclusion of other factors in the best interests analysis” … , we conclude that “the wishes of the [14]-year-old child are . . . entitled to great weight where, as here, the age and maturity [of the child] would make [her] input particularly meaningful” … . In addition, although the position of the AFC is not determinative, it is a factor to be considered … , and the AFC here has supported the child’s wish to live with the father both in Family Court and on appeal. Matter of Alwardt v Connolly, 2020 NY Slip Op 02574, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

,

WHETHER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MUST BE DETERMINED BASED SOLELY UPON THE PEOPLE’S PROOF AT TRIAL; IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR FOR THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION PRIOR TO TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the court committed (harmless) error when it ruled, prior to the trial, that the jury would not be instructed on the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) affirmative defense:

… [T]he court erred in determining prior to trial that it would not charge the jury on the affirmative defense of EED. A defendant may be entitled to a jury charge on the affirmative defense of EED based solely on the People’s proof … , and thus it was error for the court to make that ruling without any consideration of the People’s evidence. People v Taglianetti, 2020 NY Slip Op 02561, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THE WAIVER OF APPEAL FORECLOSED ALL APPELLATE RIGHTS; THE WAIVER WAS THEREFORE INVALID (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not valid because the court gave the erroneous impression all appellate rights were given up by the waiver:

County Court’s oral explanation of the waiver suggested that defendant was entirely ceding any ability to challenge his guilty plea on appeal, but such an “improper description of the scope of the appellate rights relinquished by the waiver is refuted by . . . precedent, whereby a defendant retains the right to appellate review of very selective fundamental issues, including the voluntariness of the plea” … . In addition, by further explaining that the cost of the plea bargain was that defendant would no longer have the right ordinarily afforded to other defendants to appeal to a higher court any decision the court had made, the court “mischaracterized the waiver of the right to appeal, portraying it in effect as an absolute bar’ to the taking of an appeal” … . The written waiver executed by defendant did not contain clarifying language; instead, it perpetuated the mischaracterization that the appeal waiver constituted an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and even stated that the rights defendant was waiving included the “right to have an attorney appointed” if he could not afford one and the “right to submit a brief and argue before an appellate court issues relating to [his] sentence and conviction” … . Where, as here, the “trial court has utterly mischaracterized the nature of the right a defendant was being asked to cede,’ [this] [C]ourt cannot be certain that the defendant comprehended the nature of the waiver of appellate rights’ ” … . People v Youngs, 2020 NY Slip Op 02558, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

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