The Third Department upheld the NYS Tax Appeals Tribunal’s determination that the petitioner, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, was not entitled to an investment tax credit (ITC) because it was in the business of delivering natural gas, not producing or processing a product as those terms are construed for an ITC under the Tax Law: The […]
The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the owners of property which abutted a street or lane did not privately own the lane, because no map was referenced in the relevant deeds, and because of the public use of the lane for more than ten years and maintenance of the street by the village: […]
In the course of a lengthy decision dealing with many issues raised by a defamation/stigma-plus proceeding brought by a school district employee against a school district, the Third Department explained qualified privilege in this context. The plaintiff was a coach whose boyfriend [Broxmeyer] had raped a student at another school. Plaintiff alleged that defendant Arbes, […]
In a defamation action, after finding that the disparaging allegations in a complaint were protected by judicial privilege, the Second Department criticized the use of invective in the pleadings: The court properly concluded that the statements made in the underlying complaint were pertinent to the action and therefore absolutely protected by the judicial proceedings privilege… […]
The Third Department determined plaintiff’s failure to administratively challenge the referral of his support-arrearages case to the Department of Taxation and Finance and the subsequent issuance of a tax warrant (pursuant to provisions of the Social Services Law) barred his action against the Department in Supreme Court. Plaintiff was seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive […]
In reversing Supreme Court and determining the wife was not entitled to maintenance, the Third Department wrote: While “[t]he amount and duration of [a maintenance] award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (…see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]), “this Court’s authority is as broad as Supreme Court’s in […]
In affirming the dismissal of a complaint on forum non conveniens grounds [after noting the first inquiry must be whether the court has jurisdiction over the parties], the First Department wrote: “The applicability of foreign law is an important consideration in determining a forum non conveniens motion and weighs in favor of dismissal”… .. The […]
The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have denied a request for a one-day adjournment to conduct an independent medical examination (IME): The court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying defendants a one-day adjournment to conduct the already scheduled IME, as there is no evidence that the failure to conduct it previously was willful, […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined plaintiffs, as part of discovery in this asbestos litigation, were entitled to an in camera review of defendant’s internal communications and to the data underlying published research studies funded by the defendant. The studies purported to cast doubt on whether chrysotile asbestos caused cancer. […]
The Third Department upheld the Appalachian Regional Emergency Medical Services Council’s determination that petitioner’s Article 78 action was untimely. Although the proceeding was brought within 30 days of the written notice of the Council’s determination, and the Council had a policy of issuing written notice, the Third Department determined the 30 day time-limit started when […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy