You are here: / WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY...

Search Results

/ , ,

WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant could not have raised the ineffective assistance argument on direct appeal and therefore county court should not have denied his motion to vacate his conviction without a hearing. There was a question whether defense counsel could have successfully moved to dismiss three felonies based on the violation of protections against double jeopardy in Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 40.20. Defendant was indicted on three felonies and three misdemeanors. But defendant had already pled guilty to the three misdemeanors in town court. When that was discovered the county court judge sent the three misdemeanors back to town court and defendant was convicted of the three felonies in county court:

​

… [E]ven if separate prosecutions were not permitted under subdivision 40.20 (2) (b), defendant must also establish that separate prosecutions were not permitted under CPL 40.20 (2) (a) in order to establish that a motion to dismiss the felonies under CPL 40.20, if made, would have been successful.

Unlike subdivision (2) (b), the determination whether separate prosecutions were permitted under subdivision (2) (a) could not have been made on the direct appeal because the “lower court paperwork” was not included in the record, and a review of the charging documents for the prior and current prosecutions is necessary to determine if acts establishing the misdemeanor offenses were “in the main clearly distinguishable from those establishing the [felony offenses]” … .

Inasmuch as the record on the direct appeal lacked the lower court paperwork, the record on direct appeal was insufficient to determine whether a motion to dismiss the felony counts under CPL 40.20, if made, would have been successful. People v Pace, 2017 NY Slip Op 08137, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/DOUBLE JEOPARDY  (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 40.20 (DOUBLE JEOPARDY, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Driving While Intoxicated convictions, noted that the dwi counts were lesser inclusory counts of vehicular manslaughter. The error did not require preservation:

​

The People correctly concede, however, that counts two and three, charging driving while intoxicated, must be dismissed as lesser inclusory counts of count one, charging vehicular manslaughter in the first degree … , and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for our review is of no moment because preservation is not required … . People v Mastowski, 2017 NY Slip Op 08113, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS, DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))

/

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant was not advised of the direct consequences of his guilty plea in that he was not advised that the sentence to which he agreed was fixed without regard to the outcome of the second violent felony offender hearing . The guilty plea was vacated and the matter sent back to County Court:

​

“While a trial court has no obligation to explain to defendants who plead guilty the possibility that collateral consequences may attach to their criminal convictions, the court must advise a defendant of the direct consequences of the plea” … . Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court failed to fulfill its obligation to advise him at the time of the plea that the sentence imposed would include a period of postrelease supervision …, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Nevertheless, the record supports defendant’s further contention that he was not advised that the sentence to which he agreed when pleading guilty was fixed without regard to the outcome of the second violent felony offender hearing, and thus that he was not properly advised of the direct consequences of the plea … . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08132, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCE, MOTION TO VACATE (DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this contract dispute should have been granted. Defendant signed the contract as president of a corporation which existed but was misnamed. Defendant could not be held personally liable:

​

“According to the well settled general rule, individual officers or directors are not personally liable on contracts entered into on behalf of a corporation if they do not purport to bind themselves individually’ . . . However, it is also well established that an agent who acts on behalf of a nonexistent principal may be held personally liable on the contract”… . “The rule [was] designed to protect a party who enters into a contract where the other signatory represents that he is signing on behalf of a business entity that in fact does not exist, under any name . . . [Thus,] as long as the identity of the corporation can be reasonably established from the evidence[,] . . . [an e]rror in the use of the corporate name will not be permitted to frustrate the intent which the name was meant to convey’ . . . In such a situation, . . . there is no need or basis to impose personal liability on the person who signed the contract as agent for the entity”… . “Accordingly, absent an allegation that, at the time of the contract, a plaintiff was under an actual misapprehension that there was some other, unincorporated group with virtually the same name as that of the actual business entity, the [c]ourt will not permit the [plaintiff] to capitalize on [a] technical naming error in contravention of the parties’ evident intentions’ ” … .

Thus, courts have determined that the individual who signed the contract may be liable where there was no existing corporation under any name because, under those circumstances, the plaintiff has “no remedy except against the individuals who acted as agents of those purported corporations”… . Where, as here, there was an existing corporation and merely a misnomer in the name of the corporation, courts have declined to impose liability on the individual who signed the contract because the plaintiff has a remedy against the existing, albeit misnamed, corporation… .

Here, we conclude that no one was under an actual misapprehension that there was an entity with the name. TBW, INC. J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08106, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (CORPORATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP).

Defendant was convicted in town court of criminal contempt stemming from anti-drone protests at Hancock Field, an Air National Guard base. The town court proceedings were recorded electronically and no stenographer was present. The defendant filed a notice of appeal, but did not file an affidavit of errors. County Court heard the appeal and reduced defendant’s sentence from one year to six months. The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined County Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because an affidavit of errors was not filed. However, because defendant had moved for an extension of time to file the affidavit of errors should the transcript of the electronic recording be deemed insufficient (never ruled on by County Court), the matter was sent back to County Court:

​

Criminal Procedure Law § 460.10 requires an appellant to file an affidavit of errors with the criminal court in order to take an appeal from a judgment of a local criminal court if the underlying proceedings were not recorded by a court stenographer. We have already held that the filing of the affidavit of errors in this circumstance is a jurisdictional prerequisite … . …[W]e conclude that the failure to file the required affidavit of errors renders the intermediate appellate court without jurisdiction to hear the case. People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 08037, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/TOWN COURT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/COUNTY COURT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TOWN COURT, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))

/ ,

WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined whether the search of a vehicle after a street stop was valid presented a mixed question of law and fact that was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals:

​

From the dissent:

​

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … .

Accepting the facts as found by the Appellate Division and the suppression court, which are not disputed here, the People failed to adduce the minimum showing required to justify a protective search of defendant’s vehicle — namely, a substantial likelihood of the presence of a weapon and an actual and specific threat to officer safety. I, therefore, disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the question of whether the protective search was lawful is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable only for record support, and I would hold that the search of defendant’s vehicle was unlawful. People v Hardee, 2017 NY Slip Op 08038, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/PROTECTIVE SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

/

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined a defendant has a right to be present when, after moving to vacate the sentence because the period of post-release supervision (PRS) was not mentioned, the sentencing court imposes the original sentence without a period of PRS:

​

There is only one enumerated exception to the statute where the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor or petty offense, on motion of the defendant the court may sentence the defendant in absentia (CPL 380.40 [2]). We have also previously held that a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at sentencing, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . However, absent such a waiver — or a forfeiture of the right to be present … — … “[t]here is no statutory basis for [a] [futility] exception” … .

Here, the Appellate Division concluded that there was no reason to remand the case because [defendant] was not adversely affected by his re-imposed sentence, citing People v Covington(88 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2011]), and People v Mills (117 AD3d at 1556). The majority in Mills cited CPL 470.15 [1] for the proposition that the Appellate Division cannot consider a sentence that did not “adversely affect[] the appellant.” CPL 470.15 (1) says, “Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” Here, as there was no voluntary waiver, [defendant’s] absence from the sentencing proceeding was in itself, under our precedents, an error as it constitutes a violation of his right under CPL 380.40. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. People v Estremera, 2017 NY Slip Op 08036, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))

/

BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant should have been found totally disabled:

​

After injuring her back in October 2007, claimant underwent multiple back surgeries, including a L3-4 and L4-5 spinal fusion in December 2010 and fusions at L4-5 and L5-S1 in August 2012. A spinal cord stimulator was implanted in August 2013. Claimant’s physician, Clifford Ameduri, was treating her for postoperative back pain. Ameduri completed a “Doctor’s Report of MMI/Permanent Impairment” form C-4.3 in August 2014 that classified her condition as permanent and assigned a class five severity F rating to her lumbar back injury under the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment and Loss of Wage Earning Capacity (2012). Ameduri also rated her functional capacity at “less than sedentary work,” a category defined as “unable to meet the requirement of sedentary work.”… Nowhere in this record does Ameduri opine that claimant sustained only a permanent partial disability. Guy Corkhill, the physician who conducted an independent medical examination on behalf of the workers’ compensation carrier, assigned a class four severity G rating to claimant’s back condition. In his testimony, Corkhill agreed with Ameduri that it was “unlikely [claimant] would ever be able to return to meaningful employment.” Notwithstanding this medical testimony, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that claimant was capable of performing sedentary employment. In adopting Ameduri’s severity F rating, the Board further discredited Corkhill’s opinion as based primarily on claimant’s subjective complaint, notwithstanding Corkhill’s testimony that her subjective complaints comported with his objective findings.

Since the Board’s findings as to claimant’s ability to perform some type of sedentary work are contrary to the consistent medical proof presented, the Board’s finding of a permanent partial disability and a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity is not supported by substantial evidence in the record … . Claimant maintains, and we agree, that the record actually warrants a finding of a permanent total disability. Matter of Wohlfeil v Sharel Ventures, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08060, Third Dept 11-16-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SEDENTARY WORK (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY  (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

/

MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined drivers for a medical lab (Empire City) were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

​

Although some of the control exercised by Empire City was occasioned by the regulated nature of the work performed by the drivers, many aspects of control exercised by Empire City went well beyond such regulation … . Empire City assigned delivery routes based on driver availability, and the drivers were required to make the stops and deliveries along those routes as specified by Empire City. To this end, Empire City provided the drivers with route sheets containing instructions for pickups and, on occasion, imposed pickup times for its clients. Drivers were required to make same-day delivery of any specimens that were picked up and, at the conclusion of each day, drivers were required to submit route sheets to Empire City and confirm that no specimens remained in their vehicles. Empire City also provided the drivers with assistance if they experienced difficulty making a delivery and, if a driver was unable to report to work and find a substitute driver, Empire City asked for advance notice so that it could cover the route by assigning another driver of its choosing to the route. Empire City provided supplies, including ice boxes and ice packs, to facilitate the deliveries and handled client complaints. Matter of Raupov (Empire City Labs., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 08068, Third Dept 11-16-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the seller of the property demonstrated it could not be held liable for the underground gas tanks found on the property. The purchase and sale contract indicated only that the seller was not aware of any underground fuel tanks:

​

The court properly found that defendant did not breach the contract by failing to disclose the presence of underground gas tanks on the property. …[D]efendant guaranteed and warranted only that it had not generated, stored or disposed of hazardous materials and had no knowledge of the previous presence of such materials on the property. Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was responsible for the presence of the gas tanks or had any knowledge of it. The former owner of the property and a managing member of defendant testified that he was unaware of the presence of the gas tanks.

In addition, … defendant disclaimed and [did not make] any warranties or representations concerning environmental conditions. Plaintiff acknowledged that it was relying solely on its own expertise and consultants in this regard, and was purchasing the property “as is, where is” … . West 17th St. & Tenth Ave. Realty, LLC v N.E.W. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08088, First Dept 11-16-17

 

REAL ESTATE (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))

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