You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petitioner, Common Cause New York, had standing to contest the State Board of Elections’ (the Board’s) approval of the use of a new voting machine on the ground the machine’s mechanism for counting votes (using a bar code) impeded the right to independently verify the voting ballots. The majority held the petitioner met the “injury-in-fact” requirement. The dissenters disagreed. Although the writ of mandamus to compel was not the proper mechanism because a discretionary, as opposed to a ministerial, act was at issue, the petition was converted to a writ of mandamus to review:

The Board … posits that petitioners cannot establish the existence of an injury that differs from the public at large. We do not believe that the facts of this case warrant “an overly restrictive analysis of [that] requirement” … . Indeed, that requirement is tempered by the principle “that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury,” as doing so would insulate the “most injurious and widespread Government actions” from scrutiny … . Within that context, petitioners have alleged a particularized harm flowing from the approval of the ExpressVote XL [voting machine] and, although it likely affects numerous high-propensity voters … , it is sufficiently “different in kind or degree from that of the public at large” to permit standing … . * * *

We may consider the modern view of a petitioner’s pleading requirements in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which merely require that the petitioner ” ‘set forth his [or her] facts and his [or her] prayer for relief and such relief as is proper may be given to him [or her]’ ” … . Accordingly, “notwithstanding the nomenclature of [petitioners’] application,” … we find that their request can be readily construed as one for mandamus to review, which asks “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” … . Matter of Common Cause N.Y. v Kosinski, 2025 NY Slip Op 04690, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: Here the petition brought in the form of a writ of mandamus to compel was deemed improper because the underlying act, the purchase of voting machines, is discretionary, not ministerial. But the court had the authority to consider the petition as a writ of mandamus to review, which was the appropriate mechanism.

 

, ,

OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOW ACCEPTS THE “CATALYST THEORY” WHICH, UNDER THE NYS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA), ALLOWS THE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES BY A PARTY WHO INSTIGATES LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE AND THE STATE VOLUNTARILY GRANTS THE SOUGHT RELIEF WITHOUT FUTHER LITIGATION; THE “CATALYST THEORY” APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PARTY “PREVAILS IN WHOLE,” NOT WHERE THE PARTY HAS ONLY “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and overruling precedent, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined petitioner was not precluded from an award of counsel fees because the agency petitioner sued, the Office of Temporary and Disability Housing (OTDA), voluntarily granted the relief petitioner sought without the need for further litigation. In so doing, the Third Department overruled Matter of Clarke v Annucci, 190 AD3d 1245, Third Dept 2021, which rejected the so-called catalyst theory and precluded recovery under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) when the sued agency voluntarily grants the sought relief after litigation has been started: The “catalyst theory” is now accepted as valid in the Third Department where, as in this case, the party “prevails in whole,” but not where a party has only “substantially prevailed:”

The text of the state EAJA, the legislative record, our collective judicial experience and common sense all lead us to conclude that the Legislature could have rationally determined that parties who receive complete relief from the State after the commencement of litigation have prevailed “in whole” even if the State folds and gives it to them. * * *

… [W]e hold that a party prevails in whole when the party obtains all of the relief sought in a lawsuit against the State — including when that relief is granted voluntarily by the State after the action is commenced — and is thus a prevailing party under the state EAJA as a matter of law (see CPLR 8602 [f]). To the extent Clarke is to the contrary, it should no longer be followed. * * *

… [A]lthough we no longer read the state EAJA to require every prevailing party to obtain judicially sanctioned relief, we do not otherwise address a party “who prevails . . . in substantial part” (CPLR 8602 [f]). Petitioner’s case does not require us to resolve whether the catalyst theory applies where a party has substantially, but not wholly, prevailed. We continue to impose an additional requirement on a substantially prevailing party to show a win against the State on the merits of one or more “issues” in litigation, and a corresponding win by the State on the merits of one or more “separate issues” (CPLR 8602 [f] …). Therefore, a party claiming to have prevailed in substantial part must still demonstrate that relief was obtained on the merits in an outcome that changes the legal relationship between the party and the State — for example, a judgment on the merits or a settlement agreement. Matter of Markey v Tietz, 2025 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If a party starts litigation against the state and the state voluntarily grants the sought relief, the party is entitled to attorney’s fees under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE WHICH WAS BELOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BUT WAS FOUR FEET HIGHER THAN THE RESIDENCE WAS DEEMED “IRRATIONAL” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the denial of petitioner’s request for an area variance for a garage which was four feet higher than the residence was irrational:

The relevant question presented by petitioner’s application was whether a four-foot area variance would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood in an instance, as here, where both structures are under the maximum height limit for an accessory structure and the residence is far below the height limit for a dwelling. … Respondent did not explain why this height differential, in context, would prove detrimental to the neighboring community. * * *

As to “feasible” alternatives, the difficulty here is that the garage had already been constructed before petitioner consolidated the lots and applied for the variance. While this situation may fairly be characterized as self-created, * * * neither respondent nor Supreme Court accounted for the statutory qualifier that a self-created problem, while relevant, “shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance” (Town Law § 267-b [3] [b] [5]). Nor did respondent or Supreme Court address the clear benefit to petitioner of maintaining her garage, as compared to the prospect of having to remove the structure and the attendant financial loss … . Matter of Williams v Town of Lake Luzerne Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2025 NY Slip Op 04509, Third Dept 7-31-25

 

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HERE IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, reiterated that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applies retroactively. Here the foreclosure action was deemed time-barred because the bank’s attempt to stop the running of the statute of limitations by de-accelerating the debt was precluded by FAPA:

… [T]his action is time-barred, and must be dismissed. “[T]he six-year statute of limitations applicable to a foreclosure action begins to run when a mortgage debt has been accelerated by the commencement of an action seeking the entire sum due” … . The first action was commenced in 2007, and such commencement accelerated the loan and called due the entire outstanding balance; thus, the six-year statute of limitations began to run at that time. Pursuant to FAPA, enacted during the pendency of this action, the parties’ 2012 stipulation discontinuing the first action, by itself, did not reset the statute of limitations, which expired in 2013 (see CPLR 3217 [e] …). Plaintiff did not commence this action until 2019, well after expiration of the statute of limitations … . Thus, defendant demonstrated prima facie that this action, which is based upon the same mortgage debt as the first action, is time-barred (see CPLR 213 [4]). In opposition to defendant’s showing, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and Supreme Court should have dismissed the foreclosure action … .

We have recently addressed plaintiff’s position that FAPA does not apply retroactively, and we again reject it. U.S. Bank N.A. v Craft, 2025 NY Slip Op 04510, Third Dept 7-31-25

Practice Point: This decision demonstrates how the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) can be applied retroactively to render a foreclosure action time-barred.

 

,

THE PURPOSE AND REACH OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied and required the dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds:

… FAPA’s enactment amended numerous CPLR provisions as well as other statutes, including: CPLR 213 (4) (a), stating that “[i]n any action [upon a note or mortgage], if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the [note] at issue was accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated”; CPLR 203 (h), stating that “[o]nce a cause of action upon a [note or mortgage] has accrued, no party may, in form or effect, unilaterally waive, postpone, cancel, toll, revive, or reset the accrual thereof, or otherwise purport to effect a unilateral extension of the limitations period prescribed by law to commence an action and to interpose the claim”; CPLR 3217 (e), stating that “[i]n any action on [a note or mortgage], the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim”; and CPLR 205-a (a), prohibiting the six-month period savings provision within which a plaintiff may recommence an action if the original action was terminated due to any form of neglect.

Having determined that FAPA applies to this foreclosure action and turning to the merits underlying defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations, plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated pursuant to CPLR 213 (4), since the 2015 action was dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and was not dismissed based upon an expressed judicial determination that the debt was not validly accelerated … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Vesely, 2025 NY Slip Op 04279, Third Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of the purpose and reach of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA).

 

THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE FREE EDUCATION TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE THEY TURN 22 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the New York State Education Department (SED) properly held that school districts, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Law, are required to provide free education to individuals with disabilities until the day before they turn 22. The opinion resolved a conflict between applicable laws and is too complex to fairly summarize here. Matter of Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 7-17-25

Same issues and result in Matter of Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 04211, Third Dept 7-17-25

 

, ,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s kidnapping first degree conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined the trial judge should have given the jury an instruction on unlawful imprisonment second degree as a lesser included offense. Kidnapping first degree requires restraint for more than 12 hours. There was a reasonable view of the evidence which supported the restraint was less than 12 hours:

“A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense charge upon request when (1) it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct and (2) there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater” … . Inasmuch as there is no dispute regarding the first prong, we turn our focus to the second. In so doing, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant” … . “It is only where there is no possible view of the facts by which the jury could find [the defendant guilty of] a lesser [included offense] that [a] refusal [to submit that offense] is justified” … . In light of the evidence relied upon by defendant, as summarized in our above weight of the evidence analysis, we agree with defendant that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that he committed the lesser offense by restraining the victim, but not for more than 12 hours as required to commit the greater offense. People v Akins, 2025 NY Slip Op 04122, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Where a reasonable view of the evidence supports a lesser included offense, it is reversible error to refuse to instruct the jury on it.

 

, ,

HERE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO USE PLAINTIFF’S INDICTMENT AND PLEA TRANSCRIPT IN THEIR DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL ACTION; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THOSE RECORDS WERE SUBJECT TO THE SEALING ORDER ISSUED BY COUNTY COURT; IF THE RECORDS WERE COURT RECORDS AND PROCURED FROM THE COURT, THE SEALING ORDER WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THEM; IF THE RECORDS WERE PROCURED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES, THE SEALING ORDER APPLIES; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that whether certain records associated with plaintiff’s criminal action, including the indictment and plea transcript, were “sealed” and thus not accessible by the defendants depended on where the defendants procured them. The sealing order did not extend to “court records” as opposed to records kept by the police and prosecutors:

We must … decide whether CPL 160.55 i… encompasses the content that plaintiff seeks to have excluded from trial. After plaintiff entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in the criminal action, County Court issued a sealing order pursuant to CPL 160.55, which applies when an action has been terminated by a conviction of certain violations, including disorderly conduct. * * *

A careful comparison of the language used in CPL 160.50 and 160.55 leads us to agree with defendants’ contention that CPL 160.55 does not extend to court records. Under CPL 160.55 (1) (c), once notified of a qualifying violation conviction, the enumerated criminal justice entities must seal “all official records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution” in their possession. By comparison, CPL 160.50 (1) provides that, when an action has been terminated in favor of the accused, unless the court requires otherwise, “the record of [an] action or proceeding shall be sealed” and notification of such termination and sealing shall be sent by the clerk of the court to the “the commissioner of the division of criminal justice services and the heads of all appropriate police departments and other law enforcement agencies” … . Upon receipt thereof, “all official records and papers, including judgments and orders of a court but not including published court decisions or opinions or records and briefs on appeal, relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with the division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor’s office shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency” (CPL 160.50 [1] [c] … . By its plain terms, CPL 160.50 seals official court records pertaining to the arrest and prosecution, whereas CPL 160.55 omits that express sealing … . * * *

We are mindful that the record does not reveal how defendants obtained copies of the indictment and combined plea/sentencing transcript. To the extent defendants obtained these documents from the official court file maintained by County Court, they would not be subject to the sealing order issued pursuant to CPL 160.55. However, if these documents were obtained from the files of “the division of criminal justice services, police agency, or prosecutor’s office” (CPL 160.55 [1] [c]), they would be subject to the sealing order.  … [P]laintiff did not waive the privilege that is afforded to these documents in the event they were obtained from one of the aforementioned law enforcement entities. Given that the record is not sufficiently developed on the issue of how these records were obtained, we must reverse so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied plaintiff’s motion in limine as it pertains to the indictment and plea/sentencing transcript and remit to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the matter. Kokoska v Joe Tahan’s Furniture Liquidation Ctrs., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04130, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 160.55, a sealing order does not extend to court records, as opposed to records kept by law enforcement and prosecutors. Here there was a question whether the defendants procured the indictment and plea transcript from the court. If so, the sealing order did not apply to them.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER NURSING HOME, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HAD AN EXCELLENT INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAM, IT WAS PROPERLY FINED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE INFECTION-CONTROL REGULATIONS BY ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, confirming the findings of the administrative law judge, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the petitioner nursing-home-facility was subject to fines for violations of the COVID-19 infection-control regulations. The regulations required nursing home employees to change gowns and glove after being in a unit with COVID-19 positive residents. The court noted that petitioner, as a limited liability company, can be penalized for the intentional violation of regulations by its employees under an agency theory:

… [P]etitioner [limited liability company], like corporations and similar entities, may be penalized “for the intentional acts of its agents that are either (1) in violation of positive prohibitions or commands of statutes regarding corporate acts, (2) authorized through action of its officers or which are done with the acquiescence of its officers, or (3) performed on behalf of the corporation if undertaken within the scope of the agents’ authority, real or apparent” … . As it is alleged here that a regulation governing petitioner’s conduct was intentionally violated by one of its employees in the course of his work, petitioner may be penalized for that conduct, if proven. * * *

Petitioner had no deficiencies in the five infection control surveys conducted in the months leading up to the December 2020 survey, counsel for the Department conceded at the hearing that it “had a great infection control program for many months,” and the surveyor who witnessed the violation acknowledged that petitioner had developed an appropriate infection control plan and properly trained employees about their obligations under it. Respondent was nevertheless free to credit the proof that the aide violated that policy on one occasion in December 2020 and, notwithstanding petitioner’s efforts to argue otherwise, we are satisfied that such constitutes substantial evidence in the record for the determination that petitioner’s employee “violate[d], disobey[ed] or disregard[ed]” multiple provisions of 10 NYCRR 415.19 and the infection control program in the course of his work and that such rendered petitioner liable (Public Health Law § 12). Matter of RSRNC, LLC v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 04131, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Here a violation of Public Health Law regulations concerning COVID-19 infection control by an employee of petitioner nursing home, a limited liability company, warranted imposing a penalty on the nursing home.

 

, , ,

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, WHICH ALLOWED REINSTATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE AFTER A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY WAS REJECTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award in this employment-discipline case should not have been vacated. The court rejected the argument that the award, which penalized the employee (Williams) for misbehavior as a corrections officer but allowed her reinstatement, violated public policy. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here. But it illustrates just how difficult it is to vacate an arbitrator’s award on public-policy grounds:

“A court may vacate an arbitrator’s award only on grounds stated in CPLR 7511 (b)” … . Among other circumstances, vacatur is permitted where an arbitrator directs an award that “violates a strong public policy” … . An arbitration award may only be vacated on public policy grounds “where a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis [(1)] that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [(2)] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State” … . As there is no contention that the law prohibited the arbitrator from deciding Williams’ guilt and penalty under the CBA, [collective bargaining agreement] our inquiry focuses on whether “the final result creates an explicit conflict with other laws and their attendant policy concerns” … . Matter of Spence (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2025 NY Slip Op 04135, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for vacating an arbitrator’s award on public policy grounds.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy