You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ECONOMIC DISTRESS VOIDED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the criteria for the doctrine of economic duress to void a contract were not met by the defendants. The defendants had entered an agreement to purchase four McDonald’s restaurants from plaintiffs. The defendants alleged they agreed to an amendment of the contract because of the actions of the plaintiffs which amounted to economic distress:

A party seeking to void a contract on the basis of economic duress must show that he or she was compelled to agree to it because of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of his or her free will … . “The existence of economic duress is demonstrated by proof that one party to a contract has threatened to breach the agreement by withholding performance unless the other party agrees to some further demand” … . A mere threat to breach a contract, however, does not amount to economic duress if the party who has been threatened can obtain performance of the contract from another source and pursue normal legal remedies for a breach of contract … . …

As the parties relying on economic duress, defendants bore the burden of proving that the agreement could not have been performed by another party. Defendants, however, failed to tender any proof in this regard. …

The record also fails to establish that other legal remedies were not available to defendants. Indeed, [one defendant] testified that, before agreeing to the amendment, [defendants]  weighed whether to take possession of the restaurants and then sue to have the original agreement enforced or not to take possession and then sue plaintiffs for specific performance. The fact that neither of those options was ultimately desirable does not mean that defendants did not have available legal remedies. Because defendants could resort to legal recourse, they cannot claim economic duress … . CRG at Arnot Mall, Inc. v Feehan, 2019 NY Slip Op 08467, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

,

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER, A KENTUCKY RESIDENT, IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION: THE COUPLE HAD NOT LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK STATE FOR 23 YEARS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over father, a Kentucky resident, in this divorce action. The couple had last lived in New York in 1995 and had resided in Kentucky from 2003 to 2015:

Assuming, without deciding, that the wife established one of the predicates for jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (b), we find that the quality and nature of the husband’s activities in New York were such that it would be unreasonable and unfair to require him to defend an action in this state. Although the parties married in New York in 1991 and resided here until 1995, they have not resided together in this state in over 23 years. From 2003 until 2015, the parties resided together in Kentucky, where, at the time of commencement of this action, the husband was employed as a university professor and the parties owned real property. With the husband’s consent, the wife moved to New York with the parties’ son  in August 2015 and, as vaguely asserted by the wife, the husband has visited them in New York. The parties have not rented or purchased a home in New York. Rather, the wife and the son have lived rent-free with the wife’s parents, with the husband providing additional financial support. In our view, the husband’s contacts with New York are insufficient to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him … .Accordingly, Supreme Court should have granted the husband’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Crosby v Crosby, 2019 NY Slip Op 08469, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

,

A PERSON NOT NAMED ON THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING CORRESPONDENCE REQUESTING THAT HE BE ADDED TO THE DOCUMENTS AS A BORROWER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme, determined that a person who was not named as a borrower on the note and mortgage was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff mortgage company’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

The record contains correspondence that reveals that a representative from Monroe Title, the title insurer for PHH Mortgage, recognized that Robert Johnson, not Brad Johnson, was the party making all payments on the mortgage. …The record also contains two letters … , on Robert Johnson’s behalf, to PHH Mortgage representative …, wherein [the writer] requests that the mortgage be modified to list Robert Johnson as the borrower. However, despite these communications, the modification did not occur and Brad Johnson continued to be the sole signatory on both instruments. Inasmuch as it is evident from the record that Brad Johnson is the only individual listed as a borrower on all relevant documents, including the note and mortgage, Robert Johnson was not a borrower and was not entitled to RPAPL 1304 notices  … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08472. Third Dept 11-21-19

 

,

MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT EACH CLAIMED THE OTHER POSSESSED THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s (Maldonaldo’s) trial should have been severed from the co-defendant’s trial;

… [W]e agree with defendant that his motion for a separate trial should have been granted (see CPL 200.40 [1]). “[S]everance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer [the] defendant’s guilt” … . Through counsel and by testifying on his own behalf, Maldonado denied knowledge of the cocaine’s existence in his car and instead pointed the finger at defendant. Specifically, he testified that defendant had brought the Bugles chip bag into the car, that he did not know the contents of that bag, that he would not have allowed the bag in his car if he did and that defendant had his hands in the area where the bag was later discovered when the traffic stop was initiated. In contrast, defendant argued — through counsel and without testifying — that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine’s presence in the car and that the cocaine must have belonged to Maldonado, given that it was found in Maldonado’s car and that he had a criminal history involving drug possession and distribution — a subject brought out during cross-examination of Maldonado. By seeking to implicate each other, defendant’s and Maldonado’s defenses were clearly antagonistic, mutually exclusive and irreconcilable, and created “a significant possibility that the jury unjustifiably concluded by virtue of the conflict itself that both defenses were incredible and gave undue weight to the [People’s] evidence” … . People v Colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 08449,Third Dept 11-21-19

 

CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE AND WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a residential newspaper delivery service (Gannett) and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [W]e find that the indicators of control retained and exercised by Gannett in its contract and dealings with claimant are not materially distinguishable from those previously found to have established an employer-employee relationship between newspaper publishers and delivery workers … . Although Gannett “points out numerous factors that would support a finding that claimant was an independent contractor, we find, consistent with our holdings in similar appeals, that the record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding of an employment relationship, precluding further judicial review” … . Matter of DiFalco (Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 07965, Third Dept 11-6-19

 

,

POLICE OFFICER’S WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO A METH LAB WAS JUSTIFIED BY WHAT WAS IN PLAIN VIEW THROUGH A PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR AND THE OFFICER’S CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE INSIDE A NEARBY TRAILER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a warrantless search and seizure of a meth lab was valid and defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied. Four police officers went to defendant’s property based upon a tip defendant was operating a meth lab there. Before going to the property, the police learned defendant and his girlfriend had purchased Sudafed, which is used to make methanphetamine, and that their subsequent attempts to buy Sudafed were denied. Once on the property officer DeMuth was able to see into the lab through a partially open door. He entered the lab, allegedly because he feared for the safety of  persons in a nearby trailer:

All of the attendant circumstances, including DeMuth’s knowledge of the tip and defendant’s conduct in running out the back door, justified DeMuth’s actions in conducting a limited protective sweep, which consisted of walking to the base of the trailer’s back steps, where the unknown item had been dropped, and peering inside the shed . The record establishes that, once DeMuth was lawfully in position, he was able to observe the incriminating evidence in plain view inside the shed … . …

DeMuth testified that his observations, together with his knowledge of the tip and the information obtained from the national precursor log, led him to believe that there was an active methamphetamine lab inside the shed. He stated that, based upon his training and experience regarding the dangers of methamphetamine production, particularly the risk of explosion, he immediately became concerned for the safety of the inhabitants of the trailer (which included several children), himself and his fellow officers and that he fully opened the door to the shed to provide ventilation. DeMuth’s testimony demonstrated that he had objectively reasonable grounds for believing that the contents of the shed posed an immediate danger to everyone present on the scene and, thus, that his actions in opening the door to the shed were justified … . The record establishes that the methamphetamine lab was subsequently seized by the New York State Police Contaminated Crime Scene Emergency Response Team. In view of all of the foregoing, we find that the warrantless search and seizure of the methamphetamine lab was justified by exceptions to the warrant requirement. People v Richards, 2019 NY Slip Op 07810, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defected because the time and place of the offense were not included:

… [A] waiver of indictment must be executed in strict compliance with CPL 195.20, which specifically requires, as is relevant here, that it set forth the “date and approximate time and place of each offense to be charged in the [SCI]” … . Although the statutory requirements of CPL 195.20 may be satisfied by reading the waiver of indictment and the SCI [superior court information] as a single document, here, neither document set forth the time of the charged offense (see CPL 195.20 …). Further, “this is not a ‘situation where the time of the offense is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable’ so as to excuse the absence of such information” … . Indeed, the felony complaint contains information regarding the time that the offense occurred … . We find unavailing the People’s assertion that reference in the waiver of the indictment to the underlying felony complaint, which contains the time of the offense, to be sufficient to comply with the clear and simple statutorily-required information. In view of the foregoing, the waiver of indictment and the related SCI are jurisdictionally defective, thereby requiring that the plea be vacated and the SCI dismissed … . People v Walley, 2019 NY Slip Op 07816, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO FATHER CONCERNING VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND IN KEEPING FATHER INFORMED ABOUT MOTHER’S HEALTH (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Family Court, determined Family Court should not have delegated authority to father to control some aspects of visitation, and should not have involved mother’s boyfriend, a non-party, in keeping father informed about mother’s medical or mental issues:

The court’s authority to set visitation cannot be delegated to a party … . We agree that the father can choose to temporarily suspend visitation while the mother is hospitalized for a mental health condition. However, Family Court went too far in giving the father — who is not a doctor or otherwise trained in recognizing and treating mental health conditions — that same authority in the vague situations where the mother is “decompensating or otherwise having an issue with her bipolar condition,” or permitting him to require supervision of visitation in the aftermath of those situations without further court intervention. We have no doubt that if the father believes or is informed that the mother is unstable, he will seek court permission to withhold or limit visits to protect the child … . The court also erred in directing the mother’s boyfriend — a nonparty, over whom the court had not obtained jurisdiction — to advise the father of any medical or mental issues that the mother may experience “as they are occurring or as soon as practicable thereafter” … . Matter of Aree RR. v John SS., 2019 NY Slip Op 07818, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

THE TRACKED IN WATER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the source of the water on which she slipped and fell was not simply tracked in rain, which was not actionable. The floor in question was temporary flooring used in a tent set up for a graduation ceremony:

We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant failed to properly inspect the premises, or that its use of rubber mats on some portions of the flooring demonstrates that it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Although defendant placed rubber mats on the flooring near the stage toward the front of the tent, the security director explained that those mats were intended to assist the graduates in approaching, crossing and leaving the stage, which was elevated and located on an incline. Plaintiff further notes that defendant chose to use two tent walls and to leave the other sides open, but she did not demonstrate that any water allegedly present on the walkway originated from those open sides, rather than having been tracked in. Nor did plaintiff establish that the subsequent placement by defendant’s staff of a mat in the area of her fall constituted notice of a dangerous condition. Property owners are not “‘required to cover all of [their] floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain'” … . Further, even assuming that water was present on the temporary flooring at issue, “the mere fact that a floor or walkway becomes slippery when wet does not establish a dangerous condition” … . Van Duser v Mount St. Mary Coll., 2019 NY Slip Op 07824, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

POLICE OFFICER ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY STEPPING IN A SNOW-COVERED POTHOLE AS HE RESPONDED TO A SERIES OF VEHICLE ACCIDENTS DURING A SNOWSTORM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department. over a dissent, determined petitioner police officer was entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits for injuries caused by stepping in a snow-covered pothole while he responded to a series of vehicle accidents during a snowstorm:

As this Court has stated, “[t]o be deemed accidental, an injury must not have been the result of activities undertaken in the ordinary course of one’s job duties but, rather, must be due to a precipitating accidental event which is not a risk of the work performed” … .

There can be no dispute that, at the time of the incident, petitioner was performing his ordinary job duties of responding to a series of traffic accidents that had occurred during his shift and that falling on a slippery snow- and ice-covered road may be a risk of petitioner’s ordinary job duties. However, we find that falling due to a pothole concealed under the snow and ice is not such a risk … . Accordingly, given these circumstances, petitioner’s fall was a sudden and unexpected event that constitutes an accident as matter of law … . Matter of Lewis v New York State Comptroller, 2019 NY Slip Op 07828, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

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