You are here: / Petition to Vacate Hearing Officer’s Decision Terminating Petitioner...

Search Results

/

Petition to Vacate Hearing Officer’s Decision Terminating Petitioner (a School Administrator) Was Not Properly Served Upon a “School Officer”

The petitioner, an elementary school administrator, was terminated for misconduct after a hearing.  Petitioner then filed a petition to vacate the hearing officer’s (HO’s) decision.  Supreme Court dismissed the petition as untimely and improperly served.  The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petition was timely, but it was not properly served. The dissenters argued that the petition was not timely filed as well:

…[W]e conclude that the phrase “receipt of the hearing officer’s decision” in Education Law § 3020-a (5) (a) refers to the receipt of such decision from the SED [State Education Department]. We thus reject respondents’ contention that section 3020-a provides that the 10-day period in which to appeal runs from the receipt of the HO’s decision by email, not the receipt of the HO’s decision through mail sent by the SED. Rather, we agree with petitioner that, by concluding that the 10-day period to appeal commenced upon petitioner’s receipt of the HO’s decision by email, the court rendered the notification process contained in Education Law § 3020-a (4) superfluous.  * * *

…[W]e agree with the court that petitioner’s service of the petition was defective. The decision of the Second Department in Matter of Franz v Board of Educ. of Elwood Union Free Sch. Dist. (112 AD2d 934 …) is instructive. There, “[t]he notice of petition was personally delivered to [the] respondent [Board of Education]’s secretary,” whom the 2nd Department concluded was “not a school officer’ as set forth in . . . Education Law [§ 2 (13)]” (id. at 935). In support of that conclusion, the 2nd Department noted that “[t]he courts of this State have consistently required strict compliance with the statutory procedures for the institution of claims against the State and its governmental subdivisions, and where the Legislature has designated a particular public officer for the receipt of service of process, we are without authority to substitute another” … . We likewise conclude here that the payroll clerk employed in the District’s business office was not a “school officer” under the Education Law. Matter of Puchalski v Depew Union Free School Dist…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05271, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/ , ,

Grievance Did Not Relate to Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreement

In finding that one of two grievances was not arbitrable because the grievance (overtime pay for police officers privately employed as security officers at the airport) did not relate to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Fourth Department explained the operative criteria:

It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, we do not determine the merits of the grievance and instead determine only whether the subject matter of the grievance is arbitrable (see CPLR 7501…). “Proceeding with a two-part test, we first ask whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute by inquiring if there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance’ . . . If no prohibition exists, we then ask whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement. If there is a prohibition, our inquiry ends and an arbitrator cannot act” … .

“Where, as here, the [CBA] contains a broad arbitration clause, our determination of arbitrability is limited to whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ ” … . If such a “reasonable relationship” exists, it is the role of the arbitrator, and not the court, to “make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them” … .

Matter of City of Syracuse v Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05251, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/

Policy Language Interpreted to Support Plaintiff’s Allegation the Insurer Was Timely Notified of Injured Worker’s Claim

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court finding that the documentary evidence did not demonstrate the insurer had not been timely notified of the claim (within the meaning of the policy language) as a matter of law.  In the course of the decision, the court interpreted the policy terms “occurrence,” “claim” and “suit” as well as the phrase “see to it that defendant was notified:”

Initially, we conclude that the December 2009 letter was a notice of an “occurrence . . . which may result in a claim” and not a “claim” under the policy. The terms “occurrence,” “claim,” and “suit” are separately used in the policy, and thus each term must be ” deemed to have some meaning’ ” … . The policy defines “[o]ccurrence” as “an accident.” The term “[c]laim” is not defined in the policy, but such term has been interpreted to mean ” an assertion of legally cognizable damage,’ ” i.e., ” a type of demand that can be defended, settled and paid by the insurer’ ” … . Here, the December 2009 letter “neither makes any demand for payment nor advises that legal action will be forthcoming” … . Rather, the letter advised plaintiff that [the injured worker] had retained an attorney in connection with personal injuries he had sustained during the course of his work on the construction project, requested that plaintiff forward the letter to its insurance carrier, and warned plaintiff that failure to notify its carrier could result in a denial of coverage and “personal responsibility for any obligations that may arise” from [the] accident.

We further conclude that the January 2010 letter and form … sent to defendant at plaintiff’s request satisfied the insured’s duty under the policy to “see to it” that defendant was notified of the occurrence “as soon as practicable” …. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the policy did not require that written notice of an occurrence come directly from plaintiff; it simply required that plaintiff “see to it” that defendant was “notified” … . Moreover, to the extent that the phrase “see to it that we are notified” is ambiguous, that ambiguity must be construed in plaintiff’s favor … .   Inasmuch as the January 2010 letter constituted notice of an “occurrence,” we conclude that the May 2010 letter constituted notice of a “claim” or “suit” based upon [the injured worker’s] April 15, 2010 commencement of the underlying action. We therefore agree with plaintiff that the court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant inasmuch as the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish a defense to plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law… . Spoleta Constr LLC v Aspen Ins UK Ltd, 2014 NY Slip Op 05250, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/

Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea

The Third Department described the types of fundamental errors which survive a guilty plea. The prosecutor’s alleged failure to inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses in not one of them:

By his plea of guilty, defendant forfeited this argument. “As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered” … . As relevant here, a claim “that the District Attorney did not inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses to testify on his behalf as required by CPL 190.50 (6) . . . does not activate a question of jurisdiction or constitute a constitutional defect and, thus, does not survive a guilty plea” … . People v McCommons, 2014 NY Slip Op 05215, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant under the long-arm statute and under federal due process principles:

In deciding whether an action may be maintained in New York against a nondomiciliary defendant, the court must first determine whether jurisdiction exists under New York’s long-arm statute (see CPLR 302) based upon the defendant’s contacts with this state; and, if it does, the court then determines “whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process” … . The ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that such requirements have been met … .

Here, plaintiffs assert that defendant’s conduct falls within the provisions of CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), which confers jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tortious act outside New York that causes injury to a person or property within the state and the defendant “expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce” … . *  *  *

Based on the record before us, we likewise find that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is compatible with federal due process standards. Generally, “a State may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over non-domiciliary defendants, provided they had certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” … . The relevant inquiry is whether a defendant “purposefully avai[led] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . Under the circumstances here, inasmuch as defendant targeted New York consumers through a network of distributors that rendered it likely that its products would be sold in New York, “it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in [this state] if its allegedly defective merchandise has . . . been the source of injury to [a New York resident]” … . Darrow v Hectronic Deutschland, 2014 NY Slip Op 05239, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Where There Has Been a Failure of a Material Condition of a Judicial Instrument of Surrender (of Guardianship and Custody of a Child), the Parent May Bring an Action to Revoke the Surrender Instrument

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined, where a parent agrees to surrender guardianship and custody of a child pursuant to a judicial instrument of surrender, a substantial failure of a material condition of the instrument allows the parent to bring an action to revoke the instrument.  In this case the persons specified in the surrender would not adopt the child:

In Matter of Christopher F. (supra), we were presented with a biological parent’s application to revoke a judicial instrument of surrender. We concluded that, although no procedures beyond notification of the parent were set forth in the statute at that time (see Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [former (c)], as added by L 1990, ch 479, § 2), “based upon our common-sense interpretation of the applicable statutory framework,” the failure of the provision of the surrender instrument conditioning the biological parent’s surrender on adoption of the child by the person specified in the surrender “permitted [the biological parent] to revoke her consent to the adoption” … . Accordingly, we granted the parent’s application for revocation of the judicial surrender. “‘The Legislature is . . . presumed to be aware of the decisional and statute law in existence at the time of an enactment'” … . Since the subsequent statutory amendments did nothing to abrogate or replace the relevant portions of our holding in Matter of Christopher F. (260 AD2d at 99-101), we conclude that, when there has been a substantial failure of a material condition of a judicial instrument of surrender, the procedure we endorsed in Matter of Christopher F. (supra) remains the appropriate procedure. In such a circumstance, the surrendering parent may bring an application before the court — either by petition or by motion — for revocation of the instrument (see id. at 101). Matter of Bentley XX, 2014 NY Slip Op 05222, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Substantial Evidence Supported Finding that Allowing a Child to Wander Away Near a Four-Lane Highway Constituted Maltreatment

The Third Department determined the Commissioner of Children and Family Services properly denied a petition to have a report maintained by the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment amended to be unfounded and expunged.  Petitioner called law enforcement because her grandchild had wandered away from her front yard and was found unharmed about 200 yards away.  There was no fence and the home faced a four-lane highway:

Substantial evidence supports the finding of maltreatment. In order to establish maltreatment, the agency was required “to demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that ‘the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition ha[d] been impaired or [was] in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the [caregiver’s] failure to exercise a minimum degree of care'” in providing the child with appropriate supervision … . Upon review of such an administrative determination, “this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the decision is rational and supported by substantial evidence” … . A determination is supported by substantial evidence “when reasonable minds could adequately accept the conclusion or ultimate fact based on the relevant proof” … .

Although petitioner’s home is at the end of a dead-end street, testimony by respondent Michelle Kelley, a caseworker for the Saratoga County Department of Social Services, and photographs introduced into evidence established that the home also faces a four-lane divided highway with a speed limit ranging from 45 to 55 miles per hour. Notably, the same evidence showed that there is no fence, or any similar physical barrier, directly between petitioner’s front yard and this highway. Matter of Cheryl Z v Carrion, 2014 NY Slip Op 05226, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

As a Matter of Discretion, the Court Can Grant a Separate Property Credit for Property Which Was Originally Separate But Which Was “Transmuted” into Marital Property (Overruling Precedent)—the Credit Was Properly Denied Here

The Third Department determined that, under the facts of the case, Supreme Court properly denied the wife a credit for the marital home which originally was her separate property.  The wife subsequently put the property in both her and her husband’s names and the property was used to consolidate the debts of both husband and wife.  However, the Third Department took the opportunity to explain that property which is originally separate but which is then “transmuted” to marital property can be the basis of a separate-property credit, overruling a case relied upon by Supreme Court to deny the credit.  The credit can be applied as a matter of discretion:

…[T]o the limited extent that Campfield [95 AD3d 1429] may be read to limit a court’s discretion to award a separate property credit to a spouse, like the wife, who transmutes separate property into marital property without changing the nature of the property itself, it should no longer be followed. As we have subsequently noted without reference to the way in which a marital asset was acquired, credits are often given for the value of the former separate property (see Murray v Murray, 101 AD3d at 1321). We have also subsequently explained that the decision to award a separate property origination credit in such a situation is a determination left to the sound discretion of Supreme Court (see Alecca v Alecca, 111 AD3d at 1128; Murray v Murray, 101 AD3d at 1321). Therefore, our own jurisprudence subsequent to Campfield indicates that such credit is not precluded as a matter of law when separate property has been transmuted into marital property. Myers v Myers, 2014 NY Slip Op 05228, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Judges Not Entitled to Retroactive Monetary Damages Re: Legislature’s Failure to Enact Cost of Living Increases Since 2000

The First Department, with concurring and dissenting opinions, affirmed Supreme Court’s declining to award the plaintiffs-judges retroactive monetary damages based upon the legislature’s failure to enact cost of living increases since 2000.  In his concurring opinion, Justice Tom determined that the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Maron v Silver, 14 NYU3d 230 (2010), did not authorize the courts to award such damages, rather the Court of Appeals left it to the legislature to remedy the problem:

There is no lingering question whether the legislature acted properly during the time period when judges’ salary remained stagnant for years – it did not – nor was there any serious controversy regarding the merits of an increase in judicial compensation. Now that the legislature has acted, the issue presented is whether the pay increases that were authorized were themselves constitutionally deficient. However, plaintiffs are conflating an understandable lack of satisfaction with the financial outcome with an analysis more properly relegated to the constitutionality of the process. Relatedly, we are constrained by the text of the Court of Appeals decision, in Maron, which analyzed the prior process in terms of the conflict between the legislature’s constitutional prerogatives, and its budgetary policies that are outside the purview of those boundaries. * * *

In the final analysis, however, the viability of the remedy which plaintiffs seek is solely governed by the existing Court of Appeals ruling. The decision did not directly define the outer boundaries of judicial power should the legislature not provide for retroactive compensation, but seemingly left the nature and extent of compensation with the legislature. Thus, I do not find that the legislature, having abandoned its constitutionally offensive policy of linkage when recently increasing judicial salaries, has constitutionally offended by acting only prospectively, nor do I see a basis to conclude that the directives of the Court of Appeals were transgressed.  Larabee v Governor of the State of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 05246, 1st Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed

The First Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based upon allegations of spoliation of evidence.  In response to plaintiff’s counsel’s initial request, 84 seconds of videotape depicting plaintiff’s slip and fall were preserved. Subsequently plaintiff’s attorney requested video of the six hours preceding the accident.  By that time, however, the tapes had been automatically erased:

On a motion for spoliation sanctions, the moving party must establish that (1) the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” which may include ordinary negligence; and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant to the moving party’s claim or defense … . In deciding whether to impose sanctions, courts look to the extent that the spoliation of evidence may prejudice a party, and whether a particular sanction is necessary as a matter of elementary fairness … . The burden is on the party requesting sanctions to make the requisite showing … . * * *

While it is true that a plaintiff is entitled to inspect tapes to determine whether the area of an accident is depicted and “should not be compelled to accept defendant’s self-serving statement concerning the contents of the destroyed tapes” … , this principle does not translate into an obligation on a defendant to preserve hours of tapes indefinitely each time an incident occurs on its premises in anticipation of a plaintiff’s request for them. That obligation would impose an unreasonable burden on property owners and lessees.   Duluc v AC & L Food Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05243, 1st Dept 7-10-14

 

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