You are here: / PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A...

Search Results

/

PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

The Third Department, in a detailed decision, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a pesticide manufacturer, had not been afforded a hearing on a clean-up plan (CMA 9) which the respondent Department of Environmental Conservation sought to implement. Therefore the Department could not find that the pesticide company had “refused” to obey the implementation order and could not proceed with the clean-up itself:

… [W]e conclude that the procedural framework set forth in ECL 27-1313 applies … . Where, as here, respondent has determined that a site poses a “significant threat to the environment,” the agency may order an owner “(i) to develop an inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program, subject to the approval of [respondent], at such site, and (ii) to implement such program within reasonable time limits specified in the order” (ECL 27-1313 [3] [a]). Prior to issuing such an order, the owner is entitled to “notice and the opportunity for a hearing” (ECL 27-1313 [4]). Where a responsible party “has failed” to comply with a remedial order, either because it is unable or unwilling to do so, respondent may implement the remedial program itself (ECL 27-1313 [5] [a], [b], [c]).

Here, under the consent order, petitioner developed the CMA report. The focus in this proceeding turns to remedy selection and implementation. Under this statutory framework, petitioner was entitled to both notice (which was provided through the statement of basis process) and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of an order directing petitioner to implement CMA 9. As it turns out, petitioner was not accorded an opportunity for a hearing to assert its challenge to CMA 9 and no implementation order was issued. Absent such an order, we must agree with petitioner that respondent’s determination that it was authorized to proceed with the remedial work based on petitioner’s “refusal” to perform the work was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of FMC Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2016 NY Slip Op 06929, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)/HAZARDOUS WASTE (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)/PESTICIDE MANUFATURE (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)

/

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION.

The Third Department noted Family Court improperly delegated its authority to structure visitation and remitted the matter:

… [W]e find a sound and substantial basis in this record for Family Court’s decision to modify the prior visitation order by limiting the mother’s visitation to a counseling format — which the mother acknowledged was the best she could hope for given her strained relationship with the child … . That said, by effectively making further visitation contingent on the success of counseling and the father’s approval, Family Court improperly delegated its authority to structure a visitation schedule … . We conclude that the matter must be remitted to Family Court for a determination as to whether a resumption of visitation with the mother would be in the child’s best interests and, if so, under what conditions … . Matter of Christine TT. v Dino UU., 2016 NY Slip Op 06910, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION)

/

FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father (respondent) was denied due process when Family Court went ahead with proceedings to terminate his parental rights in his absence. Father was never informed that a final hearing or trial was scheduled:

A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights, but that right “is not absolute and must be balanced with the child’s right to a prompt and permanent adjudication”… . “Absent unusual justifiable circumstances, a parent’s rights should not be terminated without his or her presence at the hearing” … . Under the circumstances here, a brief adjournment to allow participation by respondent would not have significantly impinged upon the child’s right to a prompt hearing … , especially since respondent may have been the only witness regarding his defense that he had attempted to contact the child … . Because the record does not provide any indication that either respondent or his counsel was aware that the August 4, 2015 proceeding was scheduled as a final hearing or trial on the petition, and because the record likewise provides no indication that either was aware of the stay expiring on September 25, 2015, we find that respondent was denied “some opportunity to participate in a meaningful way” … . Thus, respondent is entitled to a new hearing, with new counsel assigned to represent him. Matter of Chloe N. (Joshua N.), 2016 NY Slip Op 06926,  3rd Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)/PARENTAL RIGHTS, TERMINATION (FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)

/

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES.

The Third Department noted: (1) Family Court improperly delegated the authority to determine mother’s visitation to a counselor; and (2) under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the child’s attorney to take a position that did not reflect the child’s wishes:

Considering the evidence as a whole and particularly considering the psychologist’s work with all of the parties and her reasoned explanation of how numerous factors led her to conclude that there was “no credible evidence of abuse” by the father but that there was evidence of “coaching, coercion and brainwashing” of the child by the mother, we find no reason to depart from Family Court’s determination to credit the psychologist. * * *

Family Court erred by delegating the determination of the mother’s visitation to the child’s counselor. A court cannot delegate its authority to determine visitation to a mental health professional … . * * *

… [W]e find no fault in the attorney for the child’s decision to advocate for a position contrary to the child’s wishes, of which Family Court was aware, given that such wishes were “likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to [her]” … . Matter of Zakariah SS. v Tara TT., 2016 NY Slip Op 06923, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

 

FAMIILY LAW (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES)

/ , , ,

SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s risk level assessment, determined defendant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment of points:

A defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment … . Not only did County Court fail to give defendant notice of its intention to sua sponte assess points for the category of use of violence, it affirmatively misled defendant by its assurance that it had already “made a decision . . . regarding a point score,” which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process … . Considering the fact that defendant was never aware of the potential of the assignment of such points until a point in time where he no longer had an opportunity to object — his only remaining opportunity to be heard being explicitly limited to arguing for a downward departure — he need not have taken any further action to preserve the issue for our review … . People v Griest, 2016 NY Slip Op 06907, 33rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE, NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

/ , ,

JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a reporter (Robles) who interviewed defendant could not be compelled to testify at the defendant’s murder trial and could not be compelled to turn over her interview notes. The information gathered by the reporter was not “critical or necessary” to the People’s case:

In People v Bonie (141 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 956 [2016]), a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, we found that the outtakes of an interview of the defendant taken at a detention center in which he discussed, inter alia, the charges against him and his relationship with the victim were ” critical or necessary’ to the People’s effort to prove motive, intent, and consciousness of guilt, since they contradict[ed] defendant’s earlier statements to police” … . In contrast, in this case, the People have a videotaped confession by the defendant that has been found admissible at trial and that includes statements consistent with other evidence in the case. Under the circumstances, and in keeping with “the consistent tradition in this State of providing the broadest possible protection to the sensitive role of gathering and disseminating news of public events'” … , we find that the People have not made a “clear and specific showing” that the disclosure sought from Robles (her testimony and interview notes) is “critical or necessary” to the People’s proof of a material issue so as to overcome the qualified protection for the journalist’s nonconfidential material (Civil Rights Law § 79-h[c]). People v Juarez, 2016 NY Slip Op 06900, 1st Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)/JOURNALISTS (JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL)

/ ,

NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s grand larceny conviction, determined there was insufficient evidence defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of his all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Defendant planned to return the ATV in exchange for return of his tools:

Larcenous intent is the “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person” … . The terms “deprive” and “appropriate” are both essential to larcenous intent and refer to a purpose “to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof” … . For this reason, “[t]he mens rea element of larceny is simply not satisfied by an intent to temporarily take property without the owner’s permission” … . The proof introduced at trial supported the singular reasonable conclusion that defendant was executing a plan to temporarily deprive the tenant of the ATV in order to force him to return defendant’s missing tools … . People v Drouin, 2016 NY Slip Op 06906, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)/LARCENY (NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)

/

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court did not have the statutory authority to require defendant to pay for a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet. Therefore revoking defendant’s probation and imposing a prison sentence based on defendant’s failure to make payments was error:

… [W]e are compelled to find “that County Court did not have statutory authority for requiring [defendant] to pay for the cost of the electronic monitoring program” … . While County Court can require a defendant to submit to the use of an electronic monitoring device if it determines that such a condition would advance public safety (see Penal Law § 65.10 [4]), it could not require a defendant to pay the costs associated with such monitoring since such costs do not fall within the category of restitution, but are more in the nature of a law enforcement expense … . People v Hakes, 2016 NY Slip Op 06905, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET)/SCRAM BRACELET (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET)

/ , , ,

MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY.

NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s expert’s testimony. The “expert-evidence” notice indicated the expert would testify about the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death but did not indicate the substance of the testimony. At trial the expert did not agree with the cause described in the autopsy report (pneumonia) and testified death was attributable to cardiac arrhythmia. The motion to strike argued the “expert notice” was deficient because it did not provide any detail about the expert’s opinion. Because the lack of detail was obvious pre-trial, the mid-trial objection was properly overruled:

Plaintiff made her motion mid-trial immediately prior to the expert’s testimony. Plaintiff argues that at the time of the expert exchange, she had no reason to object to the disclosure statement because the statement gave no indication that defendant would challenge plaintiff’s theory of decedent’s cause of death. Assuming defendant’s disclosure was deficient, such deficiency was readily apparent; the disclosure identified “causation” as a subject matter but did not provide any indication of a theory or basis for the expert’s opinion. This is not analogous to a situation in which a party’s disclosure was misleading or the trial testimony was inconsistent with the disclosure. Rather, the issue here was insufficiency.

The trial court’s ruling did not endorse the sufficiency of the statement but instead addressed the motion’s timeliness. The lower courts were entitled to determine, based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case, that the time to challenge the statement’s content had passed because the basis of the objection was readily apparent from the face of the disclosure statement and could have been raised — and potentially cured — before trial. Rivera v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06854, CtApp 10-20-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT EVIDENCE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)

/

JUDGE’S EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR WARRANTED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

The Court of Appeals determined the petitioner, a Town and Village Justice, should be removed from office for what might be termed “bullying” while on and off the bench:

The misconduct giving rise to that concession “qualifies as ‘truly egregious'” … . The record reflects that, among other things, petitioner used a sanction — a tool meant to “shield” from frivolous conduct — as a “sword” to punish a legal services organization for a perceived slight in an inexcusable and patently improper way (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a] [authorizing the imposition of sanctions, but precluding town and village courts from applying such penalties]). The record is also replete with instances in which petitioner used his office and standing as a platform from which to bully and to intimidate. To that end, it is undisputed that petitioner engaged in ethnic smearing and name-calling and repeatedly displayed poor temperament — perhaps most significantly, by engaging in a physical altercation with a student worker.

Those actions are representative of an even more serious problem. Petitioner — in what allegedly was a grossly misguided attempt to motivate — repeatedly threatened to hold various officials and employees of the Village of Spring Valley in contempt without cause or process. …

Significantly, too, petitioner’s hectoring extended beyond the courthouse. In what ostensibly was an attempt to undermine a former co-Judge and an apparent political adversary, petitioner willfully injected himself into the political process involving the election of an office other than his own. Matter of Simon, 2016 NY Slip Op 06855, CtApp 10-20-16

 

JUDGES (JUDGE’S EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR WARRANTED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE)

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