You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

BECAUSE FATHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE APPEALABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined father was not in default because his attorney appeared. Therefore the custody order was appealable:

Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking to modify a prior order of custody that, inter alia, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to respondent mother. The father now appeals from an order that, inter alia, continued sole legal and physical custody of the subject child with the mother.

We agree with the father that Family Court erred in entering the order upon his default based on his failure to appear in court. The record establishes that the father “was represented by counsel, and we have previously determined that, [w]here a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded” … . Matter of Williams v Richardson, 2020 NY Slip Op 01975, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

,

THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD BEGUN WORKING FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT ENTERED HIS PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was deprived of his right counsel because defense counsel had become employed by the district attorney’s office at the time of the plea:

It is well established that a criminal defendant’s right to counsel is violated when a defense attorney who actively participated in the preliminary stages of the defendant’s defense becomes employed as an assistant district attorney by the office that is prosecuting the defendant’s ongoing case … . In those circumstances, the defendant and the public are given “the unmistakable appearance of impropriety and [the situation] create[s] the continuing opportunity for abuse of confidences entrusted to the attorney during the [period] of his [or her] active representation of defendant” … . Disqualification is required when there is “the appearance of impropriety and the risk of prejudice attendant on abuse of confidence, however slight” … . “The rule is necessary to prevent situations in which [a] former client[] must depend on the good faith of [his or her] former [attorney] turned adversar[y] to protect and honor confidences shared during the now extinct relationship. In those situations the risk of abuse is obvious” … .

Here, we conclude that defendant’s right to counsel was violated … . The People concede that the attorney who had represented defendant with respect to the misdemeanor charges was employed by the District Attorney’s Office at the time defendant entered into the plea agreement that resolved those misdemeanor charges as well as the felony charges. Thus, on this record, we conclude that there is an “appearance of impropriety and . . . risk of prejudice attendant on abuse of confidence” … , and defendant should not have been required to “depend on the good faith of [his] former [attorney] turned adversar[y] to protect and honor confidences shared during the now extinct relationship” … . People v Sears, 2020 NY Slip Op 01974, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

,

BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM COMMUNICATING WITH HIS ATTORNEY DURING OVERNIGHT RECESSES WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ON THE STAND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant did not preserve for appeal his objection to the trial judge’s prohibiting defendant from communicating with his lawyer during overnight recesses when defendant was testifying. The legitimacy of the objection was not addressed:

Defendant … contends in his main brief that the court committed reversible error by depriving him of the constitutional right to counsel when it prohibited him from communicating with defense counsel about his testimony during overnight recesses while defendant was in the midst of testifying in his defense. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as defense counsel was ” present and available to register a protest’ to [the] restriction on communication that would [have] provide[d] the court with an opportunity to rectify its error” but did not make a timely protest … . Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Contrary to defendant’s related contention in his main brief, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that defense counsel’s failure to timely object to the prohibition on communication was not so “egregious and prejudicial as to compromise . . . defendant’s right to a fair trial” … . People v Tetro, 2020 NY Slip Op 01973, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

THERE IS NO LEGAL SUPPORT FOR A ‘TRI-PARENT’ ARRANGEMENT WHERE A FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER OF MOTHER, MOTHER AND FATHER SHARE VISITATION AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, over a two-justice concurrence and a dissent, determined petitioner, the former same-sex partner of mother, did not have standing to seek custody and visitation of the child, despite mother’s support of the petition. The petitioner moved out of mother;s residence in 2010. Mother thereafter conceived a child with father. At first father wanted nothing to do with the child, but he has visited the child since 2014. Petitioner participated in the birth and naming of the child and assumed the role of a parent, but the romantic relationship with mother ended in 2012. Father opposed petitioner’s 2017 petition for custody and visitation. Mother did not want to terminate father’s rights. Family Court granted father’s motion to dismiss the petition. The Fourth Department affirmed finding no legal support for a “tri-parent” custody and visitation arrangement:

The wording of Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) is clear and straightforward. It states that “either” parent may seek custody or visitation (id.). It is a well-settled principle of statutory construction that “[w]ords of ordinary import used in a statute are to be given their usual and commonly understood meaning” … . The common dictionary definition of “either” when used as an adjective has two senses, i.e., “being the one and the other of two” and “being the one or the other of two” … . In addition, when the Court of Appeals stated in Brooke S.B. that section 70 does not define the critical term “parent,” it added the following in a footnote: “We note that by the use of the term either,’ the plain language of Domestic Relations Law § 70 clearly limits a child to two parents, and no more than two, at any given time” (Brooke S.B., 28 NY3d at 18 n 3). In our view, the clear wording of section 70 (a), which was expressly recognized by the Court of Appeals, precludes any relief to petitioner here because there are already two parents: the mother and the father. Under section 70 (a), there simply can be no more. We are therefore in agreement with the Third Department’s recent decision determining that to allow three parents to “simultaneously have standing to seek custody . . . does not comport with the holding in Matter of Brooke S.B.” (Matter of Shanna O. v James P., 176 AD3d 1334, 1335 [3d Dept 2019]). Matter of Tomeka N.H. v Jesus R., 2020 NY Slip Op 02015, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

Similar issue and result in Matter of Wlock v King, 2020 NY Slip Op 02019, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

, , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, ASSESSED POINTS ON A THEORY NOT RAISED BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS OR THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, assessed points on a theory not raised by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or the People:

… [D]efendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that County Court violated his right to due process by sua sponte assessing points on a theory not raised by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or the People … . The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine his or her risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the risk level assessment … . Here, no allegations were made either in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or by the People at the SORA hearing that defendant should be assessed 30 points under risk factor 3, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points under that risk factor for the first time when the court issued its decision … . …

The court stated that, if defendant were a presumptive level one risk, an upward departure to level two would be warranted based on certain aggravating factors stemming from the nature of the crimes. Because those factors were not presented as bases for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to them … . People v Wilke, 2020 NY Slip Op 02002, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION ON A GROUND (STANDING) NOT RAISED BY A PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed causes of action for lack of standing when that issue was not raised by the parties:

We thus conclude that the court erred in sua sponte reaching the issue of standing with respect to the second and third causes of action … . Standing “is an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation” … . Inasmuch as the … respondents’ cross motion with respect to the second and third causes of action was not based on petitioners’ alleged lack of standing, there was no basis for the court to reach that issue.  Matter of Barbeau v Village of LeRoy, 2020 NY Slip Op 01732, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

JUDGE WHO WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM HEARING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s summary denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined the judge, who was the District Attorney when defendant was indicted, was disqualified from handling the motion:

The Judge who denied defendant’s motion had been the Niagara County District Attorney when defendant was indicted in 2007 on the charges that resulted in the judgment now sought to be vacated and, in fact, had signed the indictment. Thus, we conclude that the Judge was disqualified from entertaining the motion pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, which provides in relevant part that “[a] judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which he [or she] is a party, or in which he [or she] has been attorney or counsel” (emphasis added). Inasmuch as “this statutory disqualification deprived the court of jurisdiction,” the order on appeal is void … . We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the motion before a different judge … . People v Simcoe, 2020 NY Slip Op 01729, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

TRAFFIC STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A TRAFFIC VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Administrative Law Judge, determined defendant’s driver’s license should not have been revoked. The record lacked substantial evidence that the police officer had probable cause to believe defendant had committed a traffic violation when he made the traffic stop which resulted in defendant’s refusing to submit to a chemical test:

A police officer initially stopped petitioner on a suspected violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 (1) (a), i.e., leaving the scene of an accident that caused property damage without reporting it. The officer observed petitioner approximately one mile from the accident site driving a white pickup truck, which matched the description of the vehicle involved in the accident. The officer effected a stop of the truck by activating the patrol vehicle’s lights and ultimately took petitioner into custody after petitioner exhibited signs and made statements that indicated he was intoxicated. Petitioner refused to submit to a chemical test, and thus his driver’s license was temporarily suspended. A refusal revocation hearing was thereafter held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (c). The Administrative Law Judge revoked petitioner’s license after concluding, inter alia, that the traffic stop was legal. In affirming that determination on petitioner’s administrative appeal, respondent concluded that the stop was lawful because the officer “had a reasonable basis for stopping” petitioner.

We agree with petitioner that respondent reviewed the determination under an incorrect legal standard inasmuch as “the Court of Appeals has made it abundantly clear’ . . . that police stops of automobiles in this State are legal only pursuant to routine, nonpretextual traffic checks to enforce traffic regulations or when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime’ . . . [,] or where the police have probable cause to believe that the driver . . . has committed a traffic violation’ ” … . We further agree with petitioner that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination that the officer had the requisite probable cause at the time of the stop … . Matter of Deraway v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 01727, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

TEACHER’S LAWSUIT AGAINST STUDENTS ALLEGED INTENTIONAL, NOT NEGLIGENT, CONDUCT AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-teacher’s suit against two students alleged intentional conduct (battery), not negligent conduct, and was therefore time-barred. Plaintiff was pushed into a locker by the students who were fighting each other. Although the students did not intend to touch the teacher, the doctrine of transferred intent applied:

Defendant met her initial burden by establishing that plaintiff was injured as a result of intentional conduct that constituted a battery and not negligent conduct … . “A valid claim for battery exists where a person intentionally touches another without that person’s consent” … . ” The intent required for battery is intent to cause a bodily contact that a reasonable person would find offensive’; there is no requirement that the contact be intended to cause harm’ ” … . The deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendants submitted in support of the motion established that defendants intentionally caused offensive bodily contact with each other by engaging in a physical fight … . Although defendants did not intend to make physical contact with or to injure plaintiff, the contact that resulted in plaintiff’s injuries was nevertheless intentional under the doctrine of “transferred intent” … . …

Defendant thus established that this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts … .  Kessel v Adams, 2020 NY Slip Op 01758, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S RULING, THE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE A CLAUSE LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S REMEDY FOR A BREACH TO RETAINING THE DEPOSIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the purchase contract did not have a limitation of remedies clause restricting plaintiff’s damages for a breach to retaining the deposit:

A limitation of remedies “will not be implied and to be enforceable must be clearly, explicitly and unambiguously expressed in a contract”… . Indeed, “[s]uch clauses are . . . strictly construed against the party seeking to avoid liability” (id. at 219), and ” a provision must be included in the agreement limiting a party’s remedies to those specified in the contract in order for courts to find that th[o]se remedies are exclusive’ ” … . Here, nothing in the contract stated that plaintiff’s contractual right to retain the deposit upon defendant’s breach was plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy for such a breach. The court thus erred in granting the cross motion on that ground … . Lundy Dev. & Prop. Mgt., LLC v Cor Real Prop. Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01751, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

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