You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RESPONDENT’S RECORDS FOR ALL CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS COULD REVEAL THE IDENTITIES OF UNDERCOVER OFFICERS; THEREFORE THE REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the reporter’s FOIL request seeking records for all certified police officers from respondent’s central registry of police officers and peace officers should not have been granted because the records include undercover officers:

The in camera submissions reveal that, unlike the state registry, at least one police agency omits from its own public payroll database certain information about certified officers working undercover or in sensitive assignments to protect their safety and preserve confidentiality; again, the police agency submits information about those same officers to the state registry. This distinction in how respondent and a local law enforcement agency account for undercover officers would be evident to one who compares the department’s public payroll database to the list attributed by the state registry to that agency. Simply put, comparing the state registry to a local department’s publicly disclosed payroll database could reveal names of undercover officers that appear on the state registry but not on their employer’s redacted payroll database. Thus, respondent demonstrated that disclosure of the registry could endanger police officers who could be presumptively revealed by name as working undercover, thereby satisfying its burden to trigger the exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f). Matter of Munson v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2026 NY Slip Op 02017, Third Dept 4-2-26

 

, , ,

A MORE PROBING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MENTALLY DISABLED DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ALFORD PLEA, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by Alford plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined a more probing inquiry by the judge was required to determine whether the plea was knowing and intelligent. Defendant had been found incompetent to stand trial twice before being found mentally competent to stand trial:

While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights” … . “People with intellectual disabilities possess diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. . . . These traits render people with intellectual disabilities uniquely vulnerable to injustice within criminal proceedings. . . . [Therefore], a court must account for [a defendant’s] diminished mental capacity in ensuring that any waiver of constitutional rights is knowing, intelligent and voluntary” … .

As defendant was twice determined to be incompetent to stand trial and had received four years of treatment before he was deemed competent to participate in his defense, County Court was aware of defendant’s intellectual disabilities. Notwithstanding the determination that defendant was competent to stand trial, the third psychiatric evaluation report cast serious doubts on defendant’s ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. The report indicates that on defendant’s most recent cognitive assessment he “achieved a [f]ull-[s]cale IQ of 59, indicative of abilities consistent with a [m]ild [i]ntellectual [d]isability.” Additionally, he “achieved an [a]daptive [b]ehavior [c]omposite of 68, consistent with [the] upper end of the ‘low’ range of daily living skills.” The psychologist further noted that defendant was “rather immature in his understanding of the severity of his charges and the chances that he could have significant consequences — such as jail time.” More importantly, during the evaluation, defendant repeatedly alleged that his counsel had reassured him that he will not be going to jail and, in fact, “express[ed] strongly held beliefs that he will not be sent to jail due to his personal circumstances of having a disability and being young when the offenses were allegedly committed. These beliefs are likely related to his relative youth and mental health difficulties, several of which make it difficult for [defendant] to relate to others successfully, accept social norms and expectations, or respect interpersonal boundaries. These beliefs are unlikely to change with additional education or training.”

Under these circumstances, “[a] more probing inquiry was warranted here to ensure that defendant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving, given his significant intellectual disability” … . As there is no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the judgment of County Court convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant thereon should be reversed, the plea vacated and the matter remitted for further proceedings … . People v Oldorff, 2026 NY Slip Op 02004, Third Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Where the defendant is mentally disabled and has previously been found incompetent to stand trial, before accepting a guilty plea, a probing inquiry by the judge is required to ensure the defendant understands the consequences.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE CONVICTIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the evidence was legally sufficient but the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

People’s accomplice theory supporting counts 2 through 7 against defendant was that the video surveillance footage depicted the gun being handed off before the shooting. However, the video footage is dark and pixelated, and the brother’s body obscures part of the interaction, making it impossible to discern whether defendant and the codefendant exchanged a handgun — let alone anything — without resorting to speculation, which cannot be the basis for defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that this codefendant was aware that defendant had a gun, as none of the witnesses testified that he was present when defendant had displayed the gun at the mother’s residence. To this point, the codefendant’s lack of knowledge combined with the testimony that he threatened to return and shoot the victim creates the reasonable inference that he already had access to a gun of his own. Accordingly, given the lack of record support to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided another individual to possess and use a firearm in commission of the offenses charged under counts 2 through 7, we reverse these convictions as against the weight of the evidence … .

Relating to the weapon charges under counts 8 and 9, multiple witnesses testified that defendant was seen with a handgun only while at the mother’s residence. However, since the evidence fails to demonstrate that the shooting was committed with the same gun, it so follows that the record also fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to use the gun he was seen with “unlawfully against another” as charged by the indictment (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]). Further, although defendant did not possess the requisite gun permit and was outside of his home or place of business, the People cannot establish operability of the handgun that defendant was seen with at the mother’s residence before the shooting either … . People v Bowden, 2026 NY Slip Op 02003, Third Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of convictions supported by legally sufficient evidence but against the weight of the evidence.

 

, ,

ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION BASED UPON DEFECTIVE SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the action should have been granted. The court, sua sponte, dismissed the case because of defective service. However, a dismissal on this ground requires a motion by a party. The dissenters argued the order at issue is not appealable and would have dismissed the appeal:

… CPLR 306-b specifies that “[i]f service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” (emphasis added). In consideration of this express language, other Departments of the Appellate Division have recognized that a court cannot dismiss a complaint on its own initiative for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon the failure to effect proper service of process … . As the July 2023 order dismissed the underlying action for lack of personal jurisdiction sua sponte, the court erred in doing so absent a motion by one of the parties. On account of that error, the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s instant request that it exercise its discretionary power to vacate that order in the interest of substantial justice … . Plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate the July 2023 order dismissing the action should therefore be granted and the complaint reinstated. Briggs v Fresenius, 2026 NY Slip Op 01827, Third Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, dismiss an action because of defective service. A party must move to dismiss on that ground.

 

,

THE ICY CONDITION WAS CREATED BY “POCKETS OF FREEZING RAIN” FROM MIDNIGHT TO 3:45 AM; THERE WAS NO “STORM;” THE “STORM-IN-PROGRESS” DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims in this parking-lot slip and fall cause, over a dissent, determined the defendant state had actual and constructive knowledge of the icy condition and the storm-in-progress doctrine did not apply:

​The evidence establishes that defendant had actual notice of the icy conditions caused by the pockets of freezing rain and called in an employee to take appropriate measures to correct the dangerous condition by implementing defendant’s usual precautions of sanding/salting all paved areas accessible to the sander trucks. Even assuming that the record was insufficient to establish actual notice, we are satisfied that defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the location of claimant’s slip and fall. Based on the expert’s testimony of icy conditions forming through 3:45 a.m., defendant should have been aware of the slippery conditions on untreated surfaces between approximately 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., the time when defendant’s employee was performing “multiple” salting and sanding passes on the facility’s roads for “safety,” approximately five to seven hours before claimant’s fall, which is a sufficient time to establish constructive notice … . * * *

… [T]he event in question amounted to “pockets of freezing rain” that fell from approximately midnight until 3:45 a.m. and caused a glaze of ice measuring .05 to 0.1 inches. Defendant begs the question when it immediately argues that it is entitled to a “reasonable period of time” from 3:45 a.m. to address the condition. The threshold question is the applicability of the doctrine in the first instance. While it may be true that there is no need to establish the existence of a major winter event in order to apply the doctrine, it is equally true that there must be some sort of ongoing hazardous weather condition, i.e., a “storm” that amounts to more than an “appreciable accumulation” … . The storm in progress doctrine is not to be applied whenever any type of inclement weather exists and, given the unrefuted testimony of claimant’s expert meteorologist, it has no place in this litigation. Powers v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 01833, Third Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: In order for the storm-in-progress doctrine to be applicable, there must have been a “storm.” Here “pockets of freezing rain” did not constitute a “storm.”

 

NEW YORK’S MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT (CSA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined New York’s Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) which allows the sale and use of marihuana, is not preempted by the federal Controlled Substance Act, which does not allow the sale and use of marihuana:

… [W]e turn to petitioners’ contention that the challenged regulations promulgated under MRTA — which authorizes the sale, use and distribution of marihuana — create a positive conflict with the CSA prohibiting these exact actions. We find that no such conflict exists. Consistent with the main objectives of the CSA, the legislative intent behind MRTA was to, among other things, “regulate, control, . . . reduce the illegal drug market and reduce violent crime, reduce participation of otherwise law-abiding citizens in the illicit market . . . [and] protect the public health, safety and welfare of the people of the state” … . In doing so, the Legislature specifically provided that nothing in MRTA was “to require any individual to engage in any conduct that violates federal law or to exempt anyone from any requirement of federal law or pose any obstacle to the federal enforcement of federal law” … . Each of the challenged parts 113, 128 and 129 within title 9 of the NYCRR further these principles by regulating the legitimate and illegitimate handling of marihuana by setting specific restrictions on prescribers, manufacturers and retailers — including, as specifically challenged by petitioners, how medical and adult-use marihuana could be labeled, advertised and marketed … . When considered through the lens of a conflict preemption analysis, although petitioners present several instances where they claim there is an impossibility between federal and state law, these are merely hypothetical or potential conflicts, as neither MRTA nor the challenged regulations pose any requirements on an individual or entity to manufacture, distribute or possess marihuana … . Matter of Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC v Hochul, 2026 NY Slip Op 01573, Third Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a cogent summary of the criteria for federal preemption of a state law.​

 

, ,

HERE THE RESITITUTION FOR THE VICTIM’S OUT-OF-POCKET MEDICAL EXPENSES WAS VACATED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE A RECORD SUPPORTING THE AMOUNT AWARDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution for the victim’s out-of-pocket medical expenses, determined the judge failed to make a record of those expenses as required by Penal Law section 60.27:

Although the restitution amount did not exceed the agreed-upon limit, the record is devoid of any hearing, colloquy or judicial determination confirming the actual out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the victim (see Penal Law § 60.27; CPL 400.30). Absent record evidence that the restitution imposed satisfied the requirements of Penal Law § 60.27, the order of restitution must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for reconsideration in accordance therewith … People v Jimenez- Rivera, 2026 NY Slip Op 01421, Third Dept 3-12-26

Practice Point: Penal Law 60.27 requires record evidence of the amount of restitution for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

 

,

THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR COULD NOT IMPOSE A NEW “RULE” WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FORMAL RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) determination, held that the Commissioner’s ruling was based upon a “rule” which had never been subject to the rule-making procedures required by the State Administrative Procedure Act. The Commissioner turned down the petitioner’s application for an O & P license (a license to own, possess and/or transport fireworks) because petitioner did not hold a PCC (an occupational license for the use of pyrotechnics). Making a PCC a requirement for an O & P license constituted a new “rule” which was invalid because the formal rulemaking procedures were never instituted:

… [T]he PCC requirement does not concern “forms and instructions, interpretive statements and statements of general policy which in themselves have no legal effect but are merely explanatory,” all of which are excluded from formal rulemaking … . Instead, mandating access to a PCC for all O & P license applicants is a “[b]lanket requirement[ ] . . . to be generally applied in the future, regardless of individual circumstances” that is subject to the State Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking process … . Respondents’ failure to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act before implementing the mandatory PCC requirement renders that requirement unenforceable … . Matter of Linear Research Assoc., Inc. v Reardon, 2026 NY Slip Op 01434, Third Dept 3-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the difference between an administrative “rule” which is subject to the formal rulemaking requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act and a “statement of general policy” which is not.

 

, , ,

A NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITS THE SALE OF FOIE GRAS, A “FATTY LIVER” CREATED BY FORCE FEEDING GEESE AND DUCKS, IS NOT PRE-EMPTED BY THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined the NYC Local Law which prohibited the sale of foe gras was not pre-empted by the Agriculture and Markets Law. Foie gras (fatty liver) is produced by force feeding geese or ducks several times a day:

Foie gras, which translates to English as “fatty liver,” is a food product obtained through such forced feeding of a goose or duck, by which the animal is made to consume large quantities of grain and fat using a pipe that is inserted down the esophagus. This process, which is repeated several times per day, seeks to produce a significantly enlarged liver when compared to that of a non-force-fed bird. * * *

… Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a provides that “[l]ocal governments, when exercising]their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall exercise these powers in such manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article, and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural districts in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened” … . * * *

… Agriculture and Markets Law article 25-AA was expressly enacted to protect agricultural lands from “nonagricultural development extend[ing] into farm areas,” as well as “[o]rdinances inhibiting farming,” which “often lead[ ] to the idling or conversion of potentially productive agricultural land” … . The Legislature thus clearly expressed its intent that Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a preempt those local laws that result in direct and unreasonable restrictions or regulations upon farming operations and the associated use of land — not the sale of products produced as a result of those operations in retail food and food service establishments, which may be subject to other statutory and regulatory limitations. Matter of City of New York v Ball, 2026 NY Slip Op 01426, Third Dept 3-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the Home Rule and pre-emption issues raised by a claim that a NYC Local Law, which prohibits the sale of animal products produced by force-feeding, is pre-empted by the Agriculture and Markets Law which seeks to limit infringement on farming operations. The pre-emption argument was rejected.​

 

,

THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION RELIED ON HEARSAY TO FIND THAT PETITIONER, A RACE-HORSE TRAINER, VIOLATED A LIMIT IMPOSED ON THE AMOUNT OF A DRUG WHICH MAY BE ADMINISTERED TO A RACE HORSE; THE HEARSAY LETTERS FROM TWO LABORATORIES WHICH TESTED THE HORSE’S BLOOD CONSTITUTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE VIOLATION BECAUSE THE LETTERS DID NOT DESCRIBE THE TESTING METHODS AND THE RELIABILTIY OF THOSE TESTING METHODS; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the NYS Gaming Commission’s ruling and remanding the matter for a new hearing, determined the Commission relied on hearsay to find that petitioner (a race-horse trainer) violated a rule limiting the amount of a drug (bute) which can be administered to a race horse. The petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding arguing that the ruling was improperly based upon hearsay. The Article 78 proceeding was transferred to the Third Department:

Petitioner … contends that respondent failed to introduce competent evidence establishing the reliability of the testing that was conducted on the postrace samples that purportedly demonstrated the presence and concentration of bute. … [P]etitioner challenges the admission and reliance on a letter … providing the result of testing from the postrace sample. The objection lodged by petitioner’s counsel to the letter was that it could not be properly admitted through … the medical director for respondent … as he had not reviewed the testing data and was not involved in the testing process. … [S]n objecting to the letter received by respondent {from a second laboratory], counsel raised the same objection … . * * *

… [I]t is of particular note that the sole proof relied upon by respondent to establish that the bute concentration from postrace samples exceeded the permissible limit were the letters from the New York and California laboratories. The letter from the New York laboratory indicated the overage in bute concentration but did not provide for the method of testing, and although the method of testing was provided in the letter from the California laboratory, neither letter gave any indication as to the reliability or general acceptance of the tests utilized to ascertain the presence and concentration of bute in the postrace samples … . … [R]elying solely on the hearsay proof in this case to establish the rule violation rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair under the circumstances presented and persuades us to remand the matter for a new hearing … . Matter of Pletcher v New York State Gaming Commission, 2026 NY Slip Op 01435. Third Dept 3-12-26

Practice Point: Although an administrative agency may base a ruling on hearsay, here hearsay letters from laboratories describing the results of testing for a drug in a race horse’s blood did not rise to the level of “substantial evidence” because the testing methods and the reliability of those methods were not described.

 

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