You are here: / HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 12...

Search Results

/

HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D.

The Third Department determined petitioner was properly found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while using a portable electronic device by the appeals board of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Petitioner was driving holding a GPS device:

​

We agree with the Appeals Board that a hand-held GPS device meets the statutory definition of a “portable electronic device” inasmuch as it is a “hand-held device with mobile data access” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d [2] [a]). In our view, it is mobile and receives data to calculate a driver’s geographical location and to communicate directions. Moreover, a review of the pertinent legislative history regarding Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d demonstrates that the Legislature intended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d (2) (a) to encompass any portable electronic device that diverts a driver’s attention away from the road and prevents the full use of a driver’s hands … . Thus, we are satisfied that the Appeals Board’s interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d (2) (a) as encompassing a hand-held GPS device was rational … .

We also agree that there is ample support for the Appeals Board’s determination that petitioner was using the GPS device. Petitioner concedes that, while he was driving, he was holding the device in his hand and “view[ing] the GPS navigation system to read directions.” Accordingly, we find that the determination was supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Clark v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2017 NY Slip Op 05133, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D)/GPS DEVICE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW,  HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D)

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact in this medical malpractice action.  Plaintiff injured her shoulder when she caught a patient (Lisa Clark) who started to fall as she was being transferred from a sideboard to a physical therapy bed. The action was deemed to sound in medical malpractice:

​

The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is that initiating a slide board transfer of Clark with minimal to moderate assistance deviated from the applicable standard of care, thereby causing Clark’s fall and plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, an expert affidavit from a physical therapist opining that utilizing a slide board transfer with minimal assistance did not deviate from the accepted standard of care and noting, based on a review of Clark’s records, that Clark had successfully completed slide board transfers with minimal or moderate assistance on prior occasions … . Thus, “the burden shifted to plaintiff to present expert medical opinion evidence that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care” … .

In opposition, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon, Matthew J. Nofziger. Even assuming that Nofziger was qualified to provide an opinion with respect to the standard of care used in the physical therapy field for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of transfer procedures … , we find his affidavit to be insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Although Nofziger criticized the assessment of Clark’s physical and cognitive abilities prior to the slide board transfer, he failed to identify or define the applicable standard of care appropriate in this case, merely asserting, in a conclusory manner, that Clark required a higher level of assistance than was provided to her … . Nor did Nofziger set forth any particular actions or procedures that could have prevented Clark from falling, thereby failing to establish the requisite nexus between the alleged malpractice and plaintiff’s injury … . Therefore, even if considered, Nofziger’s affidavit was patently insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the transfer procedure used in this case deviated from the applicable standard of care … . Webb v Albany Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 05146, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, LAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

/ ,

CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO-CAUSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department determined claimant’s negligent highway design action was properly no-caused after a non-jury trial. Claimant struck a disabled vehicle that was on the shoulder of the road. Claimant alleged the four-foot wide shoulder was too narrow. The state was entitled to qualified immunity for the highway design:

​

Defendant has a “duty to keep its roadways in a reasonably safe condition,” but “is afforded ‘a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision'” … . Qualified immunity does not attach where defendant’s “study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan,” however, and it falls on defendant to show that its actions resulted from a sufficiently deliberative process … .

Claimant cites various alleged deficiencies in the design of Route 7 relating to his assertion that the four-foot wide shoulder where the disabled vehicle was parked was too narrow. Route 7 is a four-lane freeway originally designed for traffic speeds of 70 miles per hour but, due to it being on a prolonged incline, a third “climbing lane” was added in the westbound direction to allow slow vehicles to make their way uphill without posing difficulties for other drivers. The credible proof at trial indicated that the shoulder width reflected the slower vehicles traveling in a climbing lane that was wide enough, in any case, to allow vehicles to pass a disabled vehicle on the shoulder. The record further reveals that the shoulder design was appropriate under the guidelines in place when the road was designed and built … . Inasmuch as the shoulder “that was installed met the relevant design standards in effect at the time of its construction,” the Court of Claims properly concluded that defendant cannot be held liable for that design … . Lake v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05142, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/HIGHWAY DESIGN (IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

/ ,

CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, over a partial concurrence/dissent, determined the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) regulations placing caps on expenditure of state Medicaid funds for administrative costs and executive pay were properly promulgated. However, placing a cap on executive pay from all sources (called the “soft cap”) was deemed to exceed the Department of Health’s authority (disagreeing with the 2nd Department):

​

On balance, the Boreali factors weigh heavily in favor of DOH. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject regulations, to the extent that they place a limit on administrative costs and executive compensation paid for by state funds and state-authorized payments, do not violate the separation of powers doctrine… .

We reach a different conclusion, however, with regard to the soft cap provision … . The soft cap provision … restricts executive compensation paid from all sources except under certain circumstances. Absent a waiver, covered providers may not pay covered executives more than $199,000 from “any” sources of funding without incurring penalties unless (1) the amount of compensation is less than “the 75th percentile of that compensation provided to comparable executives in other providers of the same size and within the same program service sector and the same or comparable geographic area” based on a compensation survey recognized by the Division of the Budget, and (2) the amount has been reviewed and approved by the covered provider’s board of directors or equivalent governing body, and such review “include[d] an assessment of appropriate comparability data” … .

Applying the Boreali analysis, we part company with the [2nd] Department and find that … DOH exceeded its authority in adopting the soft cap portion of 10 NYCRR part 1002. First, by attempting to regulate executive compensation from all sources, DOH was acting on its own ideas of sound public policy. Relatedly, inasmuch as the soft cap provision ventures outside DOH’s legislative mandate to manage the efficient and effective use of taxpayer money for health care and related services, DOH was not engaged in mere interstitial rulemaking … . Finally, DOH has no special expertise in administering regulations governing the overall executive compensation or competence in regulating corporate governance as such. Matter of Leadingage N.Y., Inc. v Shah, 2017 NY Slip Op 05136, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

MEDICAID (CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MEDICAID, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MEDICAID, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (MEDICAID, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)

/ , ,

DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED.

The First Department, in an action seeking reimbursement for environmental cleanup costs, determined the policy exclusion from coverage of lead emissions controlled, even though the soil was also contaminated with lead paint, which was not excluded from coverage:

​

In this case, not only did the damage result from different sources, i.e., lead emissions and lead paint, but, also, one source is excluded from coverage and the other is not. However, the damage resulting from either source is not readily divisible from the damage resulting from the other. The combined effect of the lead emissions and the lead paint was soil contamination – of the same soil. To the extent a particular area was contaminated solely by lead paint, it was not (and could not have been) included in the EPA’s remediation efforts (see 42 USC § 9604). Moreover, claimant would not have had to pay for any damage – including lead paint damage – if not for the accompanying pollution (see 42 USC § 9607). Thus, the entire claim is barred by the pollution exclusions. Matter of Midland Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05171, 1st Dept 6-22-17

INSURANCE LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP, DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (INSURANCE, DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED)POLLUTION EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE, DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED)

/

JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the appellate division, determined a juror who asked to be excused after four days of deliberations should have been discharged as “grossly unqualified.” The alternate jurors had been excused. The juror repeatedly told the judge she could not separate her emotions from her analysis of the facts. The defendant was charged with stabbing the victim 38 times:

Pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . the court must discharge such juror. . . . If no alternate juror is available, the court must declare a mistrial.”

As explained in People v Buford, a juror is grossly unqualified “only ‘when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict'” (69 NY2d at 298 … ). * * *

…[ T]he record reveals that it was obvious the juror possessed a state of mind preventing her from rendering an impartial verdict and thus, she was “grossly unqualified to serve.” The juror declared forthrightly that she could not separate her emotions from her ability to deliberate and was incapable of fulfilling her sworn duty to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial and the law. Compelling the juror to resume deliberations could not cure the fundamental problem with her state of mind. The trial court’s implicit conclusion that the juror did not “possess[] a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict” (Buford, 69 NY2d at 298 …) was erroneous. People v Spencer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05118, CtApp 6-22-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL, GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED, JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED)/GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED (JURORS, CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED)

/

MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA PROPERLY DENIED, INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THE MOVE WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, concluded Family Court properly denied mother’s petition to relocate to Florida. Mother was not sure where she would live or work or how child care would be arranged. It did not appear father would be able to visit the child in Florida. The fact that father was behind in child support was not enough to show the relocation would be in the best interests of the child. Matter of Salena S. v Ahmad G., 2017 NY Slip Op 05172, 1st Dept 6-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA PROPERLY DENIED, INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THE MOVE WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD)/RELOCATION (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA PROPERLY DENIED, INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THE MOVE WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD)

/

WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

The Third Department determined the determination should be annulled and expunged because a witness’s testimony was taken outside the inmate’s presence without his permission:

​

In disciplinary hearings, an inmate has a conditional right to call witnesses on his or her behalf and “[a]ny witness shall be allowed to testify at the hearing in the presence of the inmate unless the hearing officer determines that so doing will jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals” … . The regulation promulgated by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision requires that, prior to excluding a witness from testifying at the hearing, the Hearing Officer must “determine” that his or her presence will threaten institutional safety or correctional goals and inform the inmate of such reason … . Here, although petitioner conceded at the hearing that one inmate who was in the special housing unit could testify outside his presence, the Hearing Officer failed to set forth, either on the record or on the witness interview sheet, any reason for the other requested witness to testify outside petitioner’s presence. Furthermore, the record does not disclose, with regard to this witness, any reason that the presence of the inmate would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals … . As there was no adherence to the Department’s regulation, the determination must be annulled … . Furthermore, although petitioner was asked what questions he would pose to the requested witness and was permitted to hear the recorded testimony of that inmate, he repeatedly objected to the testimony of the inmate being taken outside his presence. As such, petitioner did not waive his right to receive a reason for the exclusion of that witness … . Matter of Kalwasinski v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05139, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT)

/

IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly required defense counsel, who represented several defendants, to submit statements demonstrating the clients’ consent to joint representation (to address potential conflicts of interest):

​

With respect to defense counsel’s potential conflict of interest, we first note that defendants failed to preserve any objection that plaintiff lacked standing to raise the issue or failed to file her cross motion in a timely manner. Nor did Supreme Court err in ordering defense counsel to obtain the written statements. “[A] lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that . . . the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests” … . Notwithstanding such a conflict, a lawyer may still represent a client if “(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing” … . All Supreme Court’s order effectively does is assure compliance with this rule … . Considering the differing roles of each defendant, we conclude that Supreme Court prudently directed defense counsel to provide the client statements. Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05143, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ASKED DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ASKED DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION)

/ ,

HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT.

The Third Department determined hearsay evidence constituted substantial evidence and supported a finding that petitioner abused a resident of a facility operated by the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). A statement from an eyewitness was the challenged hearsay:

​

… [I]t is well established that, in an administrative hearing, hearsay is admissible and may support a finding of substantial evidence … Further, hearsay evidence “may, under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis of an agency’s determination, unless the hearsay evidence is seriously controverted” … . Here, the corroborated description of the incident by the eyewitness was only controverted by petitioner’s denial that he punched the victim. Petitioner’s acknowledgment that he engaged in horseplay with the victim that morning, combined with his statements on two other occasions that he did not recall whether he punched the victim, presented credibility questions for the Justice Center to resolve … . Consequently, the Justice Center could view the corroborated description by the eyewitness as not seriously controverted and “sufficiently reliable” so as to constitute substantial evidence … . Matter of Cauthen v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2017 NY Slip Op 05147, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT)/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT)/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT)

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