You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , , ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS HOSPITAL QUALITY-REVIEW PROCEEDINGS DID NOT APPLY TO REPORTS ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this wrongful termination and retaliation action was entitled to discovery of so-called RL6 reports addressing unsafe working conditions. Defendant hospital claimed the documents were privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3) and the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (42 USC § 299b-21 et seq. [hereinafter PSQIA]):

Plaintiff was employed as a nursing assistant and technician within defendant’s secure unit for patients with behavioral health and psychiatric conditions. He commenced this action for wrongful termination and retaliation under Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, claiming that defendant unlawfully fired him after he reported unsafe workplace practices and conditions. During discovery, plaintiff demanded copies of his statements to defendant, including his June 2022 report of safety concerns submitted to defendant’s electronic reporting system. Plaintiff also requested the parties’ communications about the secure unit and defendant’s responses to prior related complaints or concerns. * * *

“[A] party does not obtain the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) merely because the information sought could have been obtained during the course of a hospital review proceeding[.] . . . The exemption applies only where the information was in fact so obtained” … . In short, the administrator’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden under Education Law § 6527 (3) … . Moreover, defendant conceded, both in its brief and at oral argument, that the RL6 reports were not submitted to a quality assurance or peer review committee. …

Assuming, without deciding, the doubtful proposition that PSQIA applies to this state law claim, defendant failed to demonstrate that the RL6 reports at issue constitute privileged patient safety work product. Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2026 NY Slip Op 02706, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the scope of the Education Law privilege protecting hospital quality-review proceedings. Here the privilege did not extend to employee reports about unsafe working conditions.

 

, , , ,

UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, vacated the order of protection issued upon respondent’s “default” based on the denial of respondent’s due process rights:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent’s counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent’s counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in “hiding” in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent’s request by again directing respondent’s counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner’s children. …

Typically, “[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim” … . “No such showing is required, however, where a party’s fundamental due process rights have been denied” … . In this case, respondent’s counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent’s nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence … . Respondent’s counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent’s counsel, and thus respondent’s attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (see CPLR 321 [b] …). The court’s atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court’s choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent’s absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (see CPLR 321 [a] …). Matter of April V. v Jonathan U., 2026 NY Slip Op 02702, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: An order issued upon a party’s default may be vacated when the party’s due process rights were violated by the judge. Here the judge ordered the party’s counsel to leave and held the hearing in the party’s absence after the counsel explained the party’s absence and offered to proceed virtually.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER-INMATE PREVAILED IN THE PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE PENALTY OF CONFINEMENT FOR 120 DAYS IN A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU); PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-inmate had prevailed in the proceeding to annul the 120-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) (imposed on him for threats of violence) and therefore was entitled to counsel fees. The 120-day confinement was annulled because the correctional facility did not comply with the requirements of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (hereinafter the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (hereinafter the SHU Exclusion Law):

… [T]he plain language of these statutes clearly required specific conduct and findings to impose a 120-day confinement sanction against an incarcerated individual housed in an RMHU [residential mental health unit]. Even putting aside the lack of the required written findings, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that petitioner’s statements — made during a crisis call while he was confined in an RMHU without any indication that he had access to the individuals who were the subject of his threats or a history of causing serious physical injury or death to another person — constituted a qualifying threat under Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A). Although Supreme Court recognized as much in annulling the 120-day confinement sanction, expressly stating that “the administrative record . . . does not contain facts from which the court can discern a rational basis for respondent’s determination,” it nevertheless denied petitioner’s application for counsel fees on the ground that respondent’s position was substantially justified. Given the inherent conflict in Supreme Court’s determinations and our finding that respondent’s position was not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for counsel fees on this basis … . Matter of Walker v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (the SHU Exclusion Law) with respect to the imposition of long-term solitary confinement on an inmate.

 

, , ,

THE “RECTAL INTRUSION” BY CORRECTION OFFICERS SEEKING TO FORCE CLAIMANT-INMATE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR ORDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES IN THIS BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE CONDUCT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT; THE STATE CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined the court should have considered the insertion of an object in claimant’s rectum as an element of damages in this suit by claimant-inmate against the State. The Court of Claims determined the State could not be vicariously liable because the conduct was outside the scope of the correction-officers’ employment. The Third Department disagreed, noting that the officers were attempting to force claimant to comply with their orders and the conduct was not motivated by sexual gratification:

There is no evidence that the rectal intrusion here was for any of the officers’ personal sexual gratification. Rather, the officers’ statements made during and immediately following the incident, as reported by claimant and credited by the Court of Claims, reflect that the sexually related conduct here was part of an overall — albeit objectively excessive — use of force to compel claimant’s compliance with a directive and, thus, was part of the officers’ employment-related function to enforce discipline within the correctional facility (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [d] …). … [T]he potential for such abuse of authority, if not the precise vile conduct engaged in here, is expressly addressed in the applicable instructions to correction officers in performing their employment-related disciplinary duties (see generally Correction Law § 137; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2). The record thus establishes defendant’s liability as to that part of the claim for damages related to the rectal intrusion … . Accordingly, we reverse the judgment to the extent that it excluded the same and remit for a new determination of claimant’s damages not inconsistent with this Court’s decision … . C.J. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02699, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here the “rectal intrusion” inflicted by correction officers upon claimant-inmate was part of an attempt to force claimant to comply with their orders. Therefore the conduct was withing the scope of the officers’ employment for which the State can be vicariously liable.

 

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE EMPANELING OF AN ANONYMOUS JURY CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury:

… [D]efendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when County Court empaneled an anonymous jury. In support of his motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of his trial counsel, who acknowledged that the decision to empanel an anonymous jury “did not sound right” at the time, but that he did not become aware that this was possibly a reversible error until April 2024, when this Court handed down Heidrich [.226 AD3d 1096]. Defendant’s trial counsel further stated that he “had not researched the issue before . . . trial” and that the “failure to object was not a result of any strategy on [his] part.” Although the People contend that the leading case on the anonymous jury issue existed prior to defendant’s trial and had not been expanded upon by Heidrich, the People acknowledge on appeal that “the empaneling of an anonymous jury in violation of CPL 270.15 constitutes a per se denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial that cannot be subjected to harmless error analysis.” Indeed, a single error may qualify as ineffective assistance where it “compromise[s] a defendant’s right to a fair trial” … , particularly where, like here, the jurors were only identified by numbers and the record fails to reveal whether their names were ever provided to defense counsel — “which materially heightens the risk of prejudice” … . Accordingly, under the unique circumstances of this particular case and where the legal basis for the motion is undisputed through sworn allegations (see CPL 440.30 [3]), we substitute our discretion for that of the motion court and grant defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction … . As such, remittal for a new trial is required. People v Rahaman, 2026 NY Slip Op 02696, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Defense counsel’s failure to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury can amount to ineffective assistance and warrant a new trial in the absence of preservation.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING WAS VIOLATED, DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined defendant was denied his fundamental right to be present at resentencing. Defense counsel told the court defendant’s presence was not necessary:

… [A]s to defendant’s assertion that his fundamental right to be present at resentencing was violated, we agree. Here, County Court … received a letter from DOCCS informing the court that defendant’s two sentences of 2 to 4 years for the underlying grand larceny convictions were not in compliance with state law, and, therefore, an amendment was required. The record reflects that defendant was not produced at either the preceding conference or the resentencing proceeding. The record merely indicates that defense counsel stated, orally and in writing, that defendant’s presence was not necessary, yet there is no acknowledgment that defendant was even aware of the resentencing proceeding. As such, defendant’s fundamental right to be present at his resentencing was violated, and the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing on the grand larceny convictions (see CPL 380.40…). People v Cobbins, 2026 NY Slip Op 02695, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at resentencing. The error need be preserved and survives defense counsel’s statement that defendant’s presence is not necessary.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, WHO REVIEWED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, MAY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DEFENDANT’S PROSECUTION; TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (CPL 440.10), determined the judge’s law clerk who reviewed the motion may have been involved in the defendant’s prosecution:

“A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality” … . As an extension of the judge that they serve, “a law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function” … . Indeed, law clerks serve as “[n]on-judges who perform judicial functions within the judicial system” … , and therefore a law clerk’s conflict may require the judge they serve to “disqualify in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned’ ” … . Although such disqualification is not automatic, a judge must insulate their law clerk from all matters in which the law clerk had any personal involvement as an attorney during the law clerk’s prior employment and disclose the law clerk’s involvement and insulation to the parties — “even where the law clerk’s involvement in the matter consisted of only a single court appearance” … . In doing so, a judge must prohibit their law clerk from participating in any way with the proceeding, including conferencing, performing legal research or drafting decisions … . The failure to do so constitutes reversible error … . People v Dickinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 02694, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here the “appearance of impropriety” created by the possibility the judge’s law clerk participated in defendant’s prosecution, required reversal of the denial of defendant’s post-trial motion.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT), AFTER A COMPLAINT MADE BY A PATIENT TO THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF HEARING AND A STATEMENT OF CHARGES INDICATING HIS EMT LICENSE COULD BE REVOKED; PLAINTIFF SOUGHT A DECLARATION HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS; SUPREME COURT AGREED BUT THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mcshan, rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, or, alternatively pursuant to Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution. Plaintiff is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) who responded to a call that a man (the patient) had fallen and could not get up. According to a witness, plaintiff thought the patient was faking, ridiculed him and offered only minimal assistance. The patient submitted a complaint to the defendant (the Department of Health). The defendant served plaintiff with a notice of hearing and statement of charges indicating plaintiff may be subject fines and revocation of the EMT license. Plaintiff then sued defendant seeking a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial:

The Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law where the value of the controversy exceeds $20 (see US Const, 7th Amend). Longstanding precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the Seventh Amendment “applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same” … . * * *

The NY Constitution provides that “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever” (NY Const, art I, § 2). * * *

… [P]laintiff asserts that defendant, in essence, seeks to punish him for tortious conduct through the imposition of a civil penalty, which traditionally entailed a jury trial … . What plaintiff fails to directly confront, however, is that the nature of this proceeding is predicated on a violation of the statutory scheme that regulates plaintiff’s professional license and that the remedies sought are tethered thereto. … Specifically, Public Health Law article 30 places the responsibility on defendant to regulate the provision of emergency medical services in the state (see Public Health Law §§ 3000-3034) and, in furtherance of that responsibility, defendant has promulgated regulations governing the training, examination and licensing of EMTs … .Ball v New York State Dept. of Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 02494, Third Dept 4-23-26

Practice Point: Plaintiff, an EMT, after a complaint from a patient, was facing a Department of Health hearing at which his EMT license could be revoked. Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE MADE NO FINDINGS TO SUPPORT EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the judge committed reversible error by empaneling an anonymous jury without any apparent justification (juror safety for example). In addition, the Third Department noted that the judge never ruled on an oral renewal of a motion to suppress:

… [P]rospective jurors were identified only by numbers and the record is devoid of proof that their names were ever provided to defendant, which materially heightens the risk of prejudice … . Additionally, County Court withheld prospective jurors’ names without making any findings on the record or articulating a case-specific justification for departing from the procedure mandated by CPL 270.15, explaining only that prospective juror identities were withheld “because of confidentiality.” The record does not reflect any concern regarding juror safety, intimidation or interference, nor any circumstances that would otherwise warrant the use of an anonymous jury … . Additionally, we are not persuaded by any of the reasons suggested by the People at oral argument. We thus exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction, reverse and remit for a new trial. People v Cassell, 2026 NY Slip Op 02173, Third Dept 4-9-26

Practice Point: Here the trial judge’s failure to place on the record the reasons for empaneling an anonymous jury required reversal and a new trial in the interest of justice.

 

, , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUISITE PROCEDURE FOR A BATSON INQUIRY; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO RULE ON WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR EXCLUDING A JUROR WAS PRETEXTUAL; THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED DESPITE A FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter to allow the trial judge to make a “Batson” finding, determined that the judge did not follow the required “Batson” procedure. The issue was considered despite the failure to preserve the error:

It is uncontested that defendant triggered a Batson challenge when he objected to the People’s peremptory challenge of the only two jurors who were perceived by defendant to be of the same racial group — satisfying step one … . Although the prosecutor offered a race-neutral reason for each juror at step two, County Court merged the step two and three requirements by immediately denying the objection without first allowing defense counsel to make an argument that the reasons were pretextual, thereby “squeez[ing] the process into a functional bypass of the key, final protocol [the Court of Appeals has] put in place” … . Such “practice falls short of a meaningful inquiry into the question of discrimination” … , particularly because the court’s consideration of pretext cannot be discerned from the record … .

While we are mindful of defense counsel’s failure to preserve this issue, given the magnitude of the error, we take corrective action in the interest of justice because the process here was woefully inadequate to satisfy the safeguards enshrined by Batson to every defendant (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] …). Therefore, since the issue of pretext is a question of fact for the trial court to assess the prosecutor’s credibility against the challenged juror’s demeanor and language capabilities, which is an inquiry appellate courts are unable to address at step three, “we withhold decision and remit this case to [County] Court to enable the trial judge who presided over this matter to determine whether the race-neutral reason proffered by the People was pretextual” … . People v Duplessis, 2026 NY Slip Op 02170, Second Dept 4-9-26

Practice Point: Here the trial judge did not follow the required steps for determining a Batson challenge to the elimination of a juror by the prosecutor.

 

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