You are here: / THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION...

Search Results

/ , , ,

THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOLLAR STORE; THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT NEED TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO INTERPRET A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ONLY A GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE ALLOWED LENGTH OF A BUILDING FACADE; THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the abutting neighbors (Cady and Crawley) had standing to contest the town planning board’s approval of the construction of a Dollar Store, determined Supreme Court should not have found that the matter must be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance proceeding. Because the zoning ordinance in question, concerning the length of a building facade, was only a guideline, it was not necessary to involve the ZBA to interpret it:

Cady and Cawley’s residence is directly adjacent to the proposed construction site, and the proposed retail store would be directly across the woods from their property. The store’s main parking lot, which is located behind the store, is in the line of sight of Cady and Cawley’s property. As a result, the store is likely to obstruct or interfere with the scenic views within the scenic viewshed overlay district from Cady and Cawley’s property. Cady and Cawley have standing because they have demonstrated that they would suffer an “injury in fact – i.e., actual harm by the action challenged that differs from that suffered by the public at large — and that such injury falls within the zone of interests, or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . * * *

… [T]he Town zoning code states that “the length of any faÇade should generally not exceed 50 feet maximum [horizontal dimension]”. Insofar as the subject provision lacks any compulsory language, … this provision is deliberately phrased …  as a guideline, rather than as a prohibition; in other words, there was no requirement for a referral to the ZBA to determine the plain language of the statute. …

… [O]ur review of the record reveals that the Planning Board underwent a nearly four-year process that involved in-depth environmental impact reports, multiple draft EISes [environmental impact statements] and public hearings, which formed the basis of the FEIS [final environments impact statement] and SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] findings statement. Accordingly, we find that the Planning Board complied with its procedural and substantive requirements under SEQRA … . Matter of Arthur M. v Town of Germantown Planning Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03440, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/ ,

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIMANT IS A SEPARATE BUSINESS ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE FAIR PLAY ACT CLARIFIED; MATTER REMITTED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD FOR A DECISION WHETHER CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR USING THE CORRECT ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and remitting the matter, clarified the meaning of the first criterion for determining whether claimant is an employee or an independent contractor pursuant to the so-called separate business entity test under the Fair Play Act. Here, the Board found that the claimant was an employee of Adelchi entitled to unemployment benefits, but the Third Department, agreeing with Adelchi’s argument, held the Board had not applied the proper criteria to its analysis:

The issue [is] whether claimant could be viewed as a separate business entity and, in that regard, Adelchi argues that the Board misconstrued the first criterion of the separate business entity test by demanding proof of a total lack of direction or control over a business entity (see Labor Law § 861-c [2] [a]). Adelchi contends that this criterion of the separate business entity test instead codifies the common-law rule that “[a]n employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence demonstrates that the employer exercises control over the results produced by claimant or the means used to achieve the results” … , which involves a fact-specific inquiry where “the relevant indicia of control will necessarily vary depending on the nature of the work” … . * * *

We … conclude that the first criterion in the separate business entity test does not require a contractor to show a total lack of direction or control over a business entity, but instead that their relationship as a whole did not show sufficient “control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” by the contractor to reflect an employer-employee relationship … . Although the factual findings already made by the Board would appear to permit the determination that Adelchi did not meet the first criterion under the proper analysis, we are constrained to reverse and remit so that the Board may answer that question in the first instance … . Matter of Tuerk (Adelchi Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 03441, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/ ,

ONCE A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WAS FILED SUPREME COURT LACKED ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PROCEEDING AND THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined once the stipulation of discontinuance was filed Supreme Court lacked any supervisory control over the proceedings. So the subsequent motions dealing with the allocation of settlement proceeds to the plaintiffs and their attorney should have been denied. After the stipulation of discontinuance a plenary action was required to enforce or set aside the settlement:

As contemplated by the stipulation and order, counsel for the parties executed a stipulation of discontinuance that was filed with the Albany County Clerk (see CPLR 3217 [a] [2]). The filing occurred before any of the motion practice at issue and, as a result, a plenary action was required “to enforce [or set aside] the settlement since the court does not retain the power to exercise supervisory control over previously terminated actions and proceedings” … . Indeed, “[w]hen an action is discontinued, it is as if it had never been,” and Supreme Court lacked authority to grant any of the requested relief … . It follows that both motions should have been denied in their entirety. DeLap v Serseloudi, 2020 NY Slip Op 03443, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/ , , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, dealt with insurance law, employment law, contract law, unjust enrichment and stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company (MLMIC) converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $75,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

… [P]er the relevant statute [(Insurance Law § 7307 [e] [3])] and the conversion plan’s definitions, plaintiff was entitled to the cash consideration … . * * *

… [T]he parties’ employment agreement provided that plaintiff would perform professional services for defendant. In exchange, defendant would pay her a stated salary and provide specified benefits including, as relevant here, obtaining and paying the premiums for professional liability insurance covering plaintiff. The record indicates that defendant purchased, controlled and maintained such a policy from MLMIC in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant was the policy administrator, selected the coverage and terms, and was responsible for all financial aspects of the policy. Notably, defendant paid annual premiums of approximately $25,710; plaintiff paid nothing toward the premiums and those amounts were not counted as income to plaintiff. Defendant received from MLMIC dividends, premium reductions and the return of premiums when the policy was canceled upon plaintiff leaving defendant’s employ, all without any objection by plaintiff. * * *

The reality is that neither party here bargained for the demutualization proceeds. Moreover, neither party actually paid for them, because membership interests in a mutual insurance company are not paid for by policy premiums; such rights are “acquired . . . at no cost, but rather as an incident of the structure of mutual insurance policies,” through operation of law and the company’s charter and bylaws … . * * *

Neither party changed its position based on demutualization and plaintiff’s conduct was neither tortious nor fraudulent. … [W]e conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden to establish its affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment. Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03444, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff in this workplace injury case precluded a contribution action by a defendant which was not a party to the release, but did not preclude an action for common-law indemnification:

In 2016, plaintiff was allegedly injured while working at a commercial construction site. Plaintiff accepted $2,000 in settlement of his claims against third-party defendants, Village Air and Electric, Inc. and Jimerico Construction, Inc. — his employer and the contractor that retained it to do work at the construction site, respectively — and executed a release agreeing to hold them harmless. He then commenced this action against defendant, another contractor whose employees had allegedly caused the condition that led to his injuries. Defendant answered and impleaded Village Air and Jimerico, claiming that it was entitled to contribution and/or indemnification.

Jimerico moved … to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that the release executed by plaintiff defeated the contribution and indemnification claims (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; General Obligations Law § 15-108) … .

… [T]he release executed by plaintiff “relieve[d] [Jimerico] from liability to any other person for contribution” pursuant to CPLR article 14 and, as a result, Supreme Court should have dismissed defendant’s contribution claim against Jimerico (General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b] …). In contrast, Jimerico’s “settlement with . . . plaintiff did not preclude [defendant] from seeking common-law indemnification from” it … . Koretnicki v Northwoods Concrete, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03445, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/ , , ,

SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $50,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

Initially, Supreme Court was “bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply precedent established in another Department,” as no relevant precedent was available from this Court or the Court of Appeals … . However, this Court is not so bound … . We agree with Supreme Court’s inclinations — although that court was constrained by stare decisis not to follow them — and disagree with the First Department’s holding in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v Title (171 AD3d at 465 …). Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision in Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. (___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), we reverse. Shoback v Broome Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03447, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should have granted the application for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in this juvenile delinquency proceeding:

” The Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal'” … . Factors that are relevant to a court’s discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal include a respondent’s criminal and disciplinary history, history of drug or alcohol use, academic and school attendance record, association with gang activity, acceptance of responsibility for his or her actions, the nature of the underlying incident, recommendations made in a probation or mental health report, the degree to which the respondent’s parent or guardian is involved in the respondent’s home and academic life, and the ability of the parent or guardian to provide adequate supervision … .

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.3 for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Under the circumstances here, including the fact that this proceeding constituted the appellant’s first contact with the court system, he took responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse, he voluntarily participated in counseling during the pendency of the proceeding, and he maintained a strong academic and school attendance record, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was warranted … . Matter of Maximo M., 2020 NY Slip Op 03428, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

/ ,

WARRANTLESS MANUAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S IPAD AT JFK AIRPORT PROPER; CRITERIA FOR SEARCHES OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES AT BORDERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s iPad was properly searched by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent at JFK airport after defendant, an airline pilot, had flown from Montreal to JFK.  Based upon an investigation in Texas, DHS believed defendant may have had child pornography on his iPad. Defendant was asked to provide the password after he was told the iPad would be seized if he did not provide the password. Defendant provided the password and child pornography was found:

Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” and “the expectation of privacy is less at the border than it is in the interior”… , border searches are generally deemed reasonable “simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border” … . Thus, “[r]outine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant” … . However, “highly intrusive searches” may require reasonable suspicion in light of the significance of the individual “dignity and privacy interests” infringed … .

While federal circuit courts are split as to whether reasonable suspicion or something less than that is required to justify a manual search of an electronic device for contraband at the border, no court has required a warrant or probable cause for either a manual or forensic search of an electronic device for contraband at the border … . Even assuming reasonable suspicion was required, here, the DHS Agents possessed reasonable suspicion to search the defendant’s iPad for child pornography … . …

Further, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the defendant was not coerced into entering the password to unlock his iPad, in violation of his right against self-incrimination, his right to due process, or CPL 60.45. The defendant, who was told that he was free to leave, was not in custody when he was asked to enter the password … . The fact that the defendant’s iPad would be detained if he did not enter the password did not mean that he was “subjected to the coercive atmosphere of a custodial confinement”… . Further, since the DHS Agents had reasonable suspicion that contraband could be found on the iPad, the Agents could perform a forensic search of the iPad without a warrant … . People v Perkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 03425, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

/ ,

THE MEANING OF ‘GROSS EARNED INCOME’ IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AFFECTED THE CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT; THE TERM WAS AMBIGUOUS REQUIRING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the settlement agreement was ambiguous. The meaning of the term “gross earned income” in the agreement affected the child support calculation. The court should have held a hearing to ascertain the intent of the parties. Instead, the court deferred to the definition of “income” in the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

“A stipulation of settlement entered into by parties to a divorce proceeding constitutes a contract between them subject to the principles of contract interpretation” … . “Where the intention of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth, effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used” … . “A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert or, under the guise of construction, add or excise terms, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the apparent meaning” … . “Whether a writing is ambiguous is a matter of law for the court, and the proper inquiry is whether the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . In making this determination, the court also should examine the entire contract and consider the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which the contract was executed … . Where a contract is ambiguous, “the court may consider the construction placed on the contract by the parties to help ascertain the meaning” … . “The role of the court is to determine the intent and purpose of the stipulation based on the examination of the record as a whole” … .

Here, the term “gross earned income,” in the context of the parties’ stipulation, is ambiguous … . However, instead of deferring to the CSSA’s definition of “income,” the Support Magistrate should have held a hearing to determine the parties’ intent in including the word “earned” … . Matter of Abramson v Hasson, 2020 NY Slip Op 03418, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ONLY CANCELLATION OF A MORTGAGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED THE NOTE AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief that was not asked for by the plaintiff. Plaintiff sought cancellation and discharge of a mortgage pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501(4). The judge cancelled the mortgage and the note:

“The court may grant relief that is warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief contained in a notice of motion if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the plaintiff only sought cancellation and discharge of the subject mortgage, not cancellation of the note. The Supreme Court should not have granted additional relief sua sponte … . We note that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek cancellation of the note, as it was not a party to it. Trenton Capital, LLC v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2020 NY Slip Op 03416, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

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