FULL SUMMARIES OF SELECTED DECISIONS, MOSTLY REVERSALS, RELEASED 9-4-23 - 9-8-23 BY THE 1ST & 4TH DEPARTMENTS
Click on the legal categories to go to all the decision-summaries in those categories on the New York Appellate Digest website, most recent first. Click on the citations to go to the full decisions on the official New York Courts website.
A 911 CALLER WHO PROVIDES ONLY HIS FIRST NAME IS AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT AND PROVIDES THE POLICE WITH ONLY THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT TO INQUIRE (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of suppression and dismissing the indictment, determined the 911 call was from an anonymous informant, even though the caller provided his first name. Because the informant was anonymous, the information about a black man in an orange jacket carrying a handgun gave rise only to the common-law right to inquire. One of the officer’s approached with his gun drawn and the defendant ran, discarding the jacket and handgun:
As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the 911 caller, who identified himself only by a first name, was anonymous inasmuch as he provided no other information from which the police could identify or locate him , and he was not present at the scene when the police arrived ?Indeed, it is not clear from the record that the name by which the caller identified himself was the caller’s real first name. Under the circumstances, we analyze the propriety of the police conduct under the law applicable to tips from anonymous informants. *
… [T]he anonymous tip was simply that of a man with a gun at a particular location. It follows that the officer’s gunpoint stop of defendant was unlawful, as was the officers’ subsequent pursuit of defendant after he took flight.?People v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 04493, Fourth Dept 9-8-23
Practice Point: A 911 caller who only provides his first name is an anonymous informant. Any information provided by the caller triggers only a police officer’s common-law right to inquire. Here the officer approached with his gun drawn. The gun discarded when the defendant ran should have been suppressed.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
PLAINTIFF STORE MANAGER FELL FROM A LADDER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE CEILING TILES DAMAGED BY A LEAK IN THE ROOF; PLAINTIFF SUED THE BUILDING OWNER; THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law causes of action in this ladder-fall case were property dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, the manager of a Dunkin Donuts, fell from the ladder when attempting to replace ceiling tiles damaged by a leak in the roof. Plaintiff sued the building owner:
Labor Law § 241(6) applies only to a narrow class of protected workers engaged in “constructing or demolishing buildings in areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . *
The Labor Law § 200 claim arises from the method of work, involving an inadequate ladder, but defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work, and therefore no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 … .
领英推荐
… [T]he record raises triable issues of fact as to whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of an unsafe ceiling leak and whether the leak proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleged that the leak created a slippery condition on the ladder.?Yousuf v Horace Plaza, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04492, First Dept 9-7-23
Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) applies only if plaintiff was injured constructing or demolishing a building. Labor Law 200 (re: method of work) applies only only when defendant exercises supervisory control over the work. Therefore the Labor Law causes of action did not apply to the store manager’s falling from a ladder while attempting to replace ceiling tiles damaged by a leak in the roof.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the SORA court should not have reopened the SORA risk-level hearing to amend its prior risk-level ruling. The criteria for a motion to renew were not met and the other justifications for re-opening the hearing were not applicable:
… [T]here are three ways in which a court could amend its SORA determination….?First, a party may move for leave to renew. A court may grant a motion for leave to renew only where (1) the motion alleges new facts and (2) the movant provides reasonable justification for not offering those facts in the original proceedings (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3];?…). The court has discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable justification … and to relax the requirements of CPLR 2221(e) in the interest of justice … .? *
Second, a court has an inherent authority to reopen a hearing “to correct its own order to rectify a mistake of law or fact” on a SORA decision … . This inherent authority stems from the “overriding purposes and objectives of SORA” to, inter alia, “protect [] vulnerable populations and . . . the public from potential harm” …. .
Here, the motion court could not have acted based on its inherent authority because the motion court did not make a mistake in its initial decision … . *
Third, a new hearing can be ordered to give the People an opportunity to make an application for an upward modification where the People refrained from making that argument when the motion court assessed points which resulted in the defendant being assigned presumptively to the level sought by the People … . *
Here, the motion court properly gave the People time to respond to defendant’s assertions and the People chose to introduce the new materials only belatedly.??People v Adams, 2023 NY Slip Op 04490, First Dept 9-7-23
Practice Point: The three ways a SORA motion court can amend a risk-level determination are described in detail. None were applicable here.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2023