You are here: / STATE WATER RESOURCES LAW DID NOT PREEMPT ZONING BOARD’S REQUIRING TOWN ...

Search Results

/ , ,

STATE WATER RESOURCES LAW DID NOT PREEMPT ZONING BOARD’S REQUIRING TOWN APPROVAL BEFORE WATER CAN BE EXTRACTED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

The Fourth Department determined the state Water Resources Law, which governs the extraction of groundwater, did not preempt the town zoning board's special-permit condition requiring town approval before water can be extracted for commercial purposes. Petitioner sought to build a pipeline to carry water from under petitioner's land to another town where the water would be sold. Petitioner argued the Water Resources Law preempted the town from requiring approval for commercial use of the extracted water. The Fourth Department held that the town's power to regulate the use of land, here requiring permission before water can be extracted for commercial purposes, was not limited by the Water Resources Law:

… [T]he Water Resources Law (ECL article 15, et seq.) does not preempt local zoning laws concerning land use. Instead, the Water Resources Law preempts only those local laws that attempt “to regulate withdrawals of groundwater,” which “includes all surface and underground water within the state's territorial limits” … . The Water Resources Law does not preempt the authority of local governments to “regulate the use of land through the enactment of zoning laws” … . * * * … [T]he statute regulates how a natural resource may be extracted but does not regulate where in the Town such extraction may occur. Matter of Smoke v Planning Bd. of Town of Greig, 2016 NY Slip Op 03322, 4th Dept 4-29-16


/ ,

HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's presence is required at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determined defendant's risk level:

A sex offender has a due process right to be present at a SORA hearing … , and the court “violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present” … . We are thus constrained to reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing and sexually violent offender determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). People v Encarnacion, 2016 NY Slip Op 03369, 4th Dept 4-29-16


/ ,

CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant's codefendant, pursuant to a plea bargain, testified against the defendant. The attorney who represented the codefendant and defendant's counsel were members of the same law firm. This situation has the potential of depriving defendant of his right to effective counsel requiring an inquiry by the court to ensure defendant is aware of all the facts and consents:

“Absent inquiry by the court and consent by the defendant, an attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in a trial at which a star prosecution witness is a codefendant whose plea bargain—including the promise to testify against defendant—was negotiated by a partner in the same firm. In these circumstances defendant is denied his right to effective assistance of counsel” … . Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel's law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” … . People v Jackson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-29-16


/

FAILURE TO PLACE ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUNBELT DURING TRIAL, AND FAILURE TO APPRISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined County Court erred by failing to place on the record the reasons for requiring defendant to wear a stun belt during the trial, and by failing to apprise defense counsel of the contents of a note from the jury prior to accepting a verdict (an error that does not require preservation by objection):

We agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the record establishing that defendant needed to wear a stun belt during the trial … . * * *

We further agree with defendant that a new trial is required based on the court's failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in regard to Court Exhibit 11, a note from the jury during its deliberations. “[T]he [c]ourt committed reversible error by violating the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note before accepting a verdict' ” … . Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . [,] preservation is not required' ” … . Contrary to the People's contention, the presumption of regularity does not apply to errors of this kind … . People v Gomez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03358, 4th Dept 4-29-16


/

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO READ BACK TO THE JURY THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION BUT NOT THE DEFENSE SUMMATION.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge's reading back (to the jury) of only the prosecutor's summation was reversible error:

County Court abused its discretion in reading back the prosecutor's summation without also reading back the defense summation.  * * *

Pursuant to CPL 310.30, “the jury can request a reading of not only evidentiary material, but also any material which is pertinent to its deliberation, including the summations, and the trial court must give such requested information or instruction as [it] deems proper' ” … . We agree with defendant that the court abused its discretion in reading back only the prosecutor's summation under the circumstances presented here. The evidence of defendant's guilt is not overwhelming, and the jurors were clearly divided at times during their deliberations, as demonstrated by their frequent requests for guidance from the court through numerous notes. People v Rivers, 2016 NY Slip Op 03327, 4th Dept 4-29-16


/

MECHANIC WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF USED CAR SELLER.

The Third Department determined a mechanic was an employee of Guardi, who bought used cars, repaired and sold them:

… [A]lthough Guardi did not advertise for claimant's services, claimant filled out paperwork that he characterized as an application for employment prior to working for Guardi. Upon being hired, Guardi offered and established claimant's rate of pay at $10 an hour. Claimant testified that after pricing the cost of repairs for a used vehicle and discussing those repairs with Guardi, Guardi would instruct him whether to make the repairs and, at times, would also make repair suggestions to claimant. Guardi provided claimant with a garage to perform the repairs that included certain equipment, such as a vehicle lift, tire-changing machine and a compressor … . Guardi also disposed of old motor oil and used tires and maintained the equipment located in the garage. While claimant owned his own tools, he kept those tools at the garage, and he did not maintain his own auto-repair business or repair vehicles for any other employer. Aside from repairing vehicles, claimant also assisted Guardi with customer service and, on occasion, sold a used vehicle, for which he would receive a commission of $50. In addition to issuing claimant a weekly paycheck, claimant was expected to work the same hours as other employees at Used Auto and report for work on time each day. Claimant was required to contact Guardi if he was sick or unable to report to work on a given day, was required to obtain permission to take time off from work and record the start and end of his shifts and meals on a timeclock … . Matter of DeVaul (Guardi — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03233, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/

SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DESIGNATION IN AGREEMENT.

The Third Department determined a security consultant who worked undercover at an Off-Track Betting (OTB) facility (Race Palace) was an employee despite the “independent contractor” designation in the written agreement:

… Claimant and the other security consultants provided services exclusively at the location of the Race Palace and claimant's work schedule was established through consultation with another security consultant. He was compensated at a negotiated hourly rate of pay that was set forth in an independent contractor agreement and was required to submit claim forms and activity reports detailing his services within established time frames in order to receive payment from OTB. In addition, he was reimbursed by OTB for certain preapproved expenses and was required to keep all information regarding his services strictly confidential. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that OTB retained the requisite control necessary to establish the existence of an employment relationship … . Although the written agreement designated claimant as an independent contractor, it is not dispositive of claimant's employment status … . Matter of Dwyer (Nassau Regional Off-Track Corp. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03232, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/

NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATE CLIENTS.

The Third Department determined a nurse who worked for Summit Health, which screens employees of corporate clients, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Summit posted openings for medical examiners on its website, interviewed applicants and screened their education, license credentials and experience to ensure their qualifications and ability to perform the required medical services. Summit scheduled the clinics with its clients, who determined what services were needed; Summit then posted the clinic dates, enabling examiners to sign up to work based upon their availability, and they were paid a set hourly rate. Summit provided all of the equipment and supplies for the clinics and reimbursed the examiners for certain travel and other expenses. If examiners could not work as scheduled, they reported to Summit, which looked for a replacement. Summit solicited claimant to work for it after reviewing her credentials posted on a job website. Claimant worked as a health examiner and a registrar as well as a lead examiner responsible for oversight of the clinic, bringing and returning supplies and equipment provided by Summit, submitting patient consent forms to Summit, resolving problems and reporting back to Summit after the clinic was completed. Examiners were required to sign contracts designating them as independent contractors, which obligated them to comply with industry best practices and provided training available for that purpose; they were required to wear a Summit identification badge and to abide by a dress code at clinics, among other provisions.

Given the foregoing, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that Summit retained sufficient overall control over the work performed by claimant to establish that she was an employee of Summit … . Matter of Armbruster (Summit Health, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03231, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/

PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.

The Third Department determined a part-time attorney was an employee of a solo practitioner, Charleston, who worked out of an office in the basement of his house:

Here, the record reflects that Charleston assigned specific legal work to the attorney, advised him of the general deadline associated with each assignment and paid him a set hourly rate for his services, which he received once the relevant clients paid their bills. While the attorney was free to accept or reject assignments, work from home and dictate his own schedule, the nature and frequency of the assignments were controlled by Charleston, and Charleston retained ultimate responsibility to the clients for the quality of the work performed. In addition, Charleston negotiated all retainer agreements, co-billed for his and the attorney's services, reimbursed the attorney for parking expenses, regardless of whether the clients paid that portion of their bills, and, at all times, remained the attorney of record. Furthermore, Charleston and the attorney did not have a written contract and the attorney was permitted to, and often did, use Charleston's office and equipment to carry out his assignments. Thus, despite evidence in the record that could support a contrary result, the Board's finding of an employment relationship is supported by substantial evidence… . Matter of Charleston (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03230, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/ , ,

VERTICAL LADDER FIRE ESCAPE, THROUGH WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL AND WAS RENDERED PARAPLEGIC, VIOLATED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS LAW 53.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the owner of an apartment building was in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law 53, which prohibited vertical ladder fire escapes. Plaintiff fell through the hole in the vertical ladder fire escape when she was visiting her friend’s apartment. Plaintiff was rendered paraplegic and sued the building owner:

… [I]n 1948, the Legislature amended the section to add language to subsection nine of Multiple Dwelling Law § 53 (see Laws of New York, 1948, ch 850). The law was entitled “An Act to amend the multiple dwelling law, in relation to existing fire escapes,” and subsection nine, as amended, expressly states that “[a] wire, chain cable, vertical ladder or rope fire-escape is an unlawful means of egress. Every such fire-escape, if required as a means of egress, shall be removed and replaced by a system of fire-escapes constructed and arranged as provided in this section” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 53[9]).

A plain reading of the clear and unambiguous language of subsection nine leads to the conclusion that all vertical ladders on multiple dwellings, regardless of when the fire escape was constructed, are unlawful and must be removed and replaced by a fire escape that complies with the provisions of Multiple Dwelling Law § 53. Notably, the section includes no exceptions of any kind … . Klupchak v First E. Vil. Assoc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03276, 1st Dept 4-28-16

 

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