You are here: / Workers’ Compensation Board’s Recovery of a Portion of Benefits...

Search Results

/

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Recovery of a Portion of Benefits Paid by the Board to an Injured Employee from the Special Disability Fund Did Not Operate to Satisfy the Board’s Judgment Against the Employer Re: those Benefits (Which the Employer Failed to Pay)

The Third Department determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s recovery from the Special Disability Fund (SDF) of a portion of the amount of a judgment against an employer did not operate to satisfy the judgment against the employer.  The judgment represented workers’ compensation benefits owed by the employer to an injured employee and paid by the Board:

In 2010, the Legislature added a clause to Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (3-a) (7) (b) to provide that, … where a member fails to pay a levied assessment, the member “shall be deemed in default” (see L 2010, ch 56, part R, § 4). Once in default, the member is subject to the enforcement mechanism contained in Workers’ Compensation Law § 26, which provides, in pertinent part, that, where the employer defaults “in the payment of any compensation due under an award,” plaintiff may file, among other things, a certified copy of the decision awarding compensation and “thereupon judgment must be entered” … . * * *

When plaintiff [the Workers’ Compensation Board] was reimbursed by the SDF — which is also funded through plaintiff … it was essentially deprived of the ability to levy an assessment therefor. Thus, the judgment at issue here is intended to assist in recovering the money that plaintiff paid …, as plaintiff is authorized to do under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (g). In sum, notwithstanding defendant’s claim that Supreme Court’s order results in a double recovery for plaintiff, given the statutory scheme, we conclude that no impermissible benefit to plaintiff results. Accordingly, we find that plaintiff’s judgment was not satisfied by reimbursement payments made by the SDF and, therefore, defendant’s motion for the filing of a satisfaction piece was properly denied. NYS Workers’ Compensation Bd v Bast Hatfield Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08082, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

/ ,

County Court Failed to Warn the Defendant that His Lack of Knowledge, When Compared with that of a Lawyer, Would Be Detrimental—Defendant Did Not Validly Waive His Right to Counsel

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because County Court failed to ensure that defendant validly waived his constitutional right to counsel.  County Court did not adequately explain that defendant’s lack of knowledge, as compared to the knowledge of a lawyer, would be detrimental:

A defendant seeking permission to proceed pro se must “effectuate[] a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” …. To this end, the trial court is required to “conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ to clarify that [the] defendant understands the ramifications of such a decision” … . The court’s inquiry “‘must accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication'” … . As the reviewing court, we may “look to the whole record, not simply to the waiver colloquy, in order to determine if a defendant effectively waived counsel” (People v Providence, 2 NY3d at 583).

* * * [The court] did not sufficiently advise [defendant] of “the ‘dangers and disadvantages’ of proceeding pro se and the value of trained trial counsel knowledgeable about criminal law and procedure” … . In fact, with respect to the dangers of self-representation, the court merely noted that defendant risked “losing objectivity” by representing himself. Absent from County Court’s inquiry was any warning that defendant’s “lack of knowledge, relative to that of a lawyer, [would] be detrimental if [he] cho[se] to waive the right to counsel” … . People v Guarnieri, 2014 NY Slip Op 08067, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

/ ,

Denial of Pistol Permit Application Was Based Upon a Misinterpretation of Penal Law 400.00

The Third Department determined County Court had based its denial of petitioner’s pistol permit application upon a misreading of Penal Law 400.00.  County Court interpreted the statute to mean that the prior revocation of a pistol permit for any reason rendered the petitioner ineligible.  However, the statute should have been interpreted to refer only to prior revocations pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 530.14 and Family Court Act 842-a:

Respondent denied petitioner’s pistol permit application based upon Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (k) (formerly Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [e]), finding that petitioner was ineligible for a pistol permit because of the prior revocation of his permit. Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (k) provides that no permit may be issued to an individual “who has [] had a license revoked or who is [] under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of [CPL] 530.14 . . . or [Family Ct Act § 842-a].” Respondent interpreted this statute as two separate clauses and automatically barred petitioner from being issued a permit because his license had previously been revoked, despite the fact that the revocation was unrelated to either CPL 530.14 or Family Ct Act § 842-a.

We agree with petitioner that this was erroneous, as our reading of the statute indicates that the bar to issuance of a pistol permit “applies only in conjunction with the application of the Criminal Procedure Law and Family Court Act sections cited therein, which deal with orders of protection, and provides that a person who has previously had a firearms license revoked pursuant to those sections is ineligible to hold such a license”… .  * * *

Although the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permit and the reasons therefor unquestionably could have some bearing on whether there is “good cause” to deny his current application (Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [n]), respondent’s denial of the application was based, not on a finding of “good cause” but, rather, upon respondent’s misinterpretation of Penal Law § 400 (1) (k). Matter of Gerard v Koweek, 2014 NY Slip Op 08084, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether her employer was aware of and condoned the alleged harassment, allowing her sexual harassment suit to go forward.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a), it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice [] [f]or an employer . . ., because of an individual’s . . . sex, . . . to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” … . An employee may succeed on a sexual harassment claim pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) upon establishing that he or she is a member of a protected group, is subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on his or her gender that affects a term, condition or privilege of his or her employment, and that the employer “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take remedial action” … . An employer will be liable for “an employee’s discriminatory act [where] the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it,” and the term condonation includes, as relevant here, “[a]n employer’s calculated inaction in response to discriminatory conduct” … . Tidball v Schenectady City Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 08092, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

/

Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings

The Third Department determined Family Court had jurisdiction over a family offense proceeding brought by a parent on behalf of her daughter against the respondent seeking an order of protection.  Both the daughter and the respondent were 13 years old. They had been boyfriend-girlfriend off and on since fifth grade.  There had been some sexual activity.  Family Court Act 812 gives Family Court jurisdiction over family offenses by a respondent against a “member of the same family or household.”  The legislature, in 2008, expanded the definition of “member of the same family or household” to include “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time.”  Respondent fit within that expanded definition:

The daughter testified that she and respondent had been classmates since kindergarten and began a “boyfriend-girlfriend” relationship in fifth grade that continued, on and off, through eighth grade. At first, the relationship consisted of holding hands, kissing and exchanging texts and phone calls. By sixth grade, according to the daughter, respondent was texting or calling her 5 or 10 times daily and becoming jealous, “controlling” and “isolat[ing].” The daughter testified that she and respondent had some sexual contact in sixth grade, including an incident in which he allegedly caused her to touch his erect penis at school in the presence of other students, and another in which he put his hand down her shirt to touch her breasts without her permission. According to the daughter, she and respondent did not date for most of seventh grade. However, late in that year they began talking again, and in eighth grade they met twice, each time at respondent’s request. The daughter testified that during the first encounter, she reluctantly acceded to respondent’s request for oral sex, believing that he would “leave [her] alone” if she did so. When they met the second time, they had sexual intercourse; the daughter testified that she asked respondent to stop and that he complied at first, but then continued. The daughter distanced herself from respondent after these events, and reported them to petitioner after she began having suicidal thoughts… . Matter of Samantha L v Luis J, 2014 NY Slip Op 08073, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

/ , ,

Rent-Stabilized Apartment Lease Is Exempt from the Bankruptcy Estate

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined that a rent-stabilized apartment lease is exempt from the bankruptcy estate because it qualifies as a “local public assistance benefit” under Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL) 282 (2):

Section 522 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code permits the debtor to exempt certain property from the bankruptcy estate, and section 522 (d) provides a list of property that may be exempt. However, the Code also permits states to create their own list of exemptions, and New York has done so. DCL § 282 sets forth the permissible exemptions in personal bankruptcy. Debtors domiciled in New York have the option of choosing either the federal exemptions or New York exemptions (11 USC § 522 (b); DCL § 285). DCL § 282 (2), entitled “Bankruptcy exemption for right to receive benefits” lists the following as exemptions:

“The debtor’s right to receive or the debtor’s interest in: (a) a social security benefit, unemployment compensation or a local public assistance benefit; (b) a veterans’ benefit; (c) a disability, illness, or unemployment benefit; (d) alimony, support, or separate maintenance, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor; and (e) all payments under a stock bonus, pension, profit sharing, or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service . . . “

When the rent-stabilization regulatory scheme is considered against the backdrop of the crucial role that it plays in the lives of New York residents, and the purpose and effect of the program, it is evident that a tenant’s rights under a rent-stabilized lease are a local public assistance benefit.   Matter of Santiago-Monteverdi, 2014 NY Slip Op 08051, CtApp 11-20-14

 

/ ,

Cross-Examination of People’s Witness About Her Past Status as a Confidential Informant Properly Precluded—Status Ended a Year Before and Witness Had Legitimate Safety Concerns

The First Department determined the defense was properly precluded from cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses about her past status as a confidential informant:

The witness’s service as an informant had concluded a year before the instant crime and did not involve defendant, the People demonstrated that the witness had legitimate safety concerns regarding disclosure of her status, and there was nothing in the circumstances of the case to raise a suspicion that her past informant status contributed to her becoming a prosecution witness in this case. People v Lopez, 2014 NY Slip Op 08117, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

/

Passive Website Informing Readers of a Surgical Procedure Offered In Florida Does Not Constitute “Transaction of Business” In New York—New York Courts Do Not Have Personal Jurisdiction Over the Florida Defendants

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a passive website explaining the availability of back surgery in Florida is not enough to afford New York courts long-arm jurisdiction (pursuant to CPLR 302—doing business in New York) over Laser Spine Institute (LSI) which subsequently treated the New York plaintiff in Florida:

In May 2008, plaintiff was suffering from severe back pain. While on the homepage of a well-known internet service provider plaintiff discovered an advertisement for LSI, a surgical facility specializing in spine surgery, with its home facility and principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Plaintiff clicked on the LSI advertisement, and viewed a 5-minute video presentation of a testimonial from a former LSI patient and professional golfer, extolling LSI’s medical services. The advertisement appeared to hold out the promise of relief for plaintiff’s back problems so he communicated with LSI by telephone and internet to inquire about possible surgical procedures to alleviate his pain. These would be the first of plaintiff’s several contacts with LSI, which led to his eventual decision to undergo surgical procedures by LSI medical professionals in Florida. Those surgeries are the underlying basis for plaintiff’s action against defendants. * * *

In order to satisfy “‘the overriding criterion’ necessary to establish a transaction of business” within the meaning of CPLR 302 (a) (1), a non-domiciliary must commit an act by which it “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]” … . Plaintiff here admits that he was the party who sought out and initiated contact with defendants after viewing LSI’s website. According to plaintiff, that website informed viewers about LSI medical services and its professional staff. However, he has not asserted that it permitted direct interaction for online registration, or that it allowed for online purchase of LSI services … . Passive websites, such as the LSI website, which merely impart information without permitting a business transaction, are generally insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction … . Paterno v Laser Spine Inst, 2014 NY Slip Op 08054, CtApp 11-20-14

 

/ , ,

Heightened Pleading Requirements for Fraud Not Met

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements:

Plaintiff has not satisfied the heightened pleading standard for a fraud claim under CPLR § 3016(b) because it failed to identify any of the allegedly, false representations that [defendant] made with the then present intent to induce plaintiff’s investment in the project. Moreover, the fraudulent inducement claim duplicates the breach of contract claim because plaintiff has not alleged any representation that is collateral to the contract … . “A fraud-based claim is duplicative of breach of a contract claim when the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” MMCT LLC v JTR Coll Point LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08103, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

/ ,

Waiver of Right to Appeal Invalid Despite the Signing of a Written Waiver

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was not valid because the right was not adequately explained and because there was no indication that the written waiver signed by the defendant was translated for him:

…[T]he record does not reflect that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal … . The Supreme Court’s statements at the plea allocution improperly suggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right which the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish, and the court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal … . Moreover, there is no indication in the record that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty … . Although the defendant did sign a written waiver of his right to appeal, nothing in the record demonstrates that the document was translated for the defendant, who required the use of a Spanish language interpreter, before it was presented to him for signature … . In any event, the court’s terse colloquy at the plea allocution, which included the language suggesting that the waiver of the right to appeal was mandatory, failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal … . People v Guarchaj, 2014 NY Slip Op 08044, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

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