You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S CLARIFICATION OF BILLING PRACTICES FOR PHYSICIANS WHO DISPENSE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM IS VALID; THE CLARIFICATION IS NOT A “RULE” AND IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined a clarification issued by the respondent NYS Department of Health, was valid, was not a rule, and was not void for vagueness. The clarification concerned the billing practices for physicians who dispense prescription drugs:

As it regularly does, respondent [NYS Department of Health] took steps to clarify appropriate billing practices. This included issuance of the July 2022 edition of its official newsletter of the New York State Medicaid Program — Medicaid Update. In a section entitled “Policy Clarification for Practitioner Dispensing” … , which purported to “supersede[ ] previous communications on this topic,” respondent stated that the state Medicaid program reimburses for drugs furnished by practitioners to their patients on the basis of the acquisition cost to the practitioner and that additional registration or ownership of a pharmacy is not required. The clarification went on to provide that practitioners billing for medications dispensed to its fee-for-service patients should use the medical claim format and that practitioners still participating in managed care should check with the patient’s health plan to determine the billing policy for prescription drugs dispensed directly to patients. Reportedly confused by the alleged change in billing practice, petitioner subsequently contacted respondent for further clarification. In response, respondent reiterated that a practitioner that dispenses drugs to their patients is not considered a pharmacy under either statutory or enrollment requirements and therefore should not be enrolled or billing as a pharmacy provider.

Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the clarification as an unpromulgated rule, unconstitutionally vague, irrational and violative of section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see 29 USC § 794). Citing anticipated financial losses for expenses attendant to medication dispensing, that is, beyond the acquisition cost of the drugs, petitioner argued that respondent’s alleged new rule would force it to cease its physician-dispensing services altogether, thereby both irrationally depriving cancer patients from effective treatment and discriminating against them by effectively precluding them from meaningful access to the provider of their choice. Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01985, Third Dept 4-3-25

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S WORKPLACE GENDER-DISCRIMINATION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a necessarily fact-specific decision, determined plaintiff’s employment-discrimination suit should not have been dismissed:

To establish a claim for gender discrimination under the Human Rights Law, a plaintiff must “show (1) that he or she was a member of a protected class, (2) that he or she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) that he or she was qualified to hold the position for which he or she suffered the adverse employment action, and (4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination” … . “Verbal comments can serve as evidence of discriminatory motivation when a plaintiff shows a nexus between the discriminatory remarks and the employment action at issue” … . “Employers are . . . required to provide reasonable avenues for discrimination and harassment complaints, to respond appropriately to such complaints, and to take reasonable steps to eliminate the harmful conduct; where they fail to do so, they are subject to liability under [the Human Rights Law]” … . * * *

The gravamen of plaintiff’s allegations is that Gulnick’s [plaintiff’s immediate boss’s] sexist views toward women fostered a workplace where women’s legitimate grievances were met with dismissal and ridicule, and conflicts that would otherwise have been dealt with were instead allowed to fester. When plaintiff sought to have her valid claims of harassment addressed in-house and ultimately in an outside mediation, Gulnick’s rebuke of her efforts envenomed with discriminatory commentary turned to anger, ultimately leading to plaintiff’s demotion and decrease in wages. Mikesh v County of Ulster, 2025 NY Slip Op 01987, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed fact-specific analysis of the criteria for a prima facie demonstration of gender discrimination in the workplace.​

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED DECEDENT A DUTY TO WARN HIM OF THE HOSTILITY HARBORED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO ULTIMATELY MURDERED DECEDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined there exists a question of fact whether decedent’s university (Binghamton) owed decedent a duty to warn decedent of the hostility toward decedent harbored by another student (Roque), a former friend of the decedent, who murdered decedent:

To hold defendant liable for negligence, claimant must establish that the University owed decedent a duty, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of decedent’s death … . The threshold issue in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty of care … . The existence and scope of a duty are legal questions for the courts to resolve in the first instance … .

… Claimant … is not seeking to hold the University liable for failing to protect decedent simply by virtue of his status as a student on campus … . The crux of claimant’s argument, as we understand it, is that counselors employed by the University’s Counseling Center were negligent in failing to make a threat assessment referral to the Dean of Students’ office upon learning of Roque’s hostility toward decedent in the months before the attack and in failing to warn decedent of Roque’s threats against him. Since the specific acts of negligence occurred during the University’s provision of mental health services — a proprietary function … — we conclude that no special duty need be established to hold the University liable and it is “held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity” … . * * *

Given that the University had threat assessment and referral procedures in place governing actions to take when faced with a distressed student, we conclude that the University owed decedent a duty to reasonably comply with those policies, if applicable … . Cuomo v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held a state university may have a “general” (not a “special”) duty to warn a student of hostility harbored by another student.

 

, ,

THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution portion of the sentence, determined the presumption of vindictiveness had not been overcome. The defendant had won an appeal requiring a second trial. Defendant argued that the restitution in the amount of $139,231.87 ordered after the second trial was punishment for the successful appeal. The Third Department also dismissed the murder second degree counts a inclusory concurrent courts of murder first degree:

“[T]o insure that trial courts do not impose longer sentences to punish defendants for taking an appeal, a presumption of vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences after their retrials than were imposed after their initial convictions” … . * * *

… [T]he imposition of restitution after retrial did result in an enhanced sentence following defendant’s successful appeal, and, as a result, the presumption of vindictiveness arose … . However, the court failed to engage in any on-the-record examination of the objective reasons why an enhanced sentence must be imposed, other than finding that it was not vindictive to order defendant “to make financially whole the representatives of his victims,” facts that indisputably existed at the time of the initial sentencing … . * * *

While we observe that County Court may have not actually been seeking to punish defendant for exercising his right to appeal when it imposed restitution, it was nevertheless the court’s obligation to overcome the presumption of vindictiveness by placing the reasons for the enhanced sentence on the record, and, based upon its failure to do so, we are constrained to vacate this portion of defendant’s sentence … . People v Powell, 2025 NY Slip Op 01839, Second Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here ordering restitution as part of the sentence after the second trial raised a presumption that the restitution constituted “punishment” for defendant’s winning the appeal of the first trial. The sentencing court put nothing on the record to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, so the restitution was vacated.

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree counts were dismissed as concurrent inclusory counts of murder first.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE CONVICTION STEMMING FROM HIS STRIKING SEVERAL CARS, CAUSING ONE TO FLIP, AND CRASHING INTO A HOUSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed defendant reckless endangerment first degree conviction over a two-justice dissent which argued the evidence did not support the “depraved indifference” element of the offense:

From the dissent:

As the majority details, on the morning of June 27, 2018, defendant was driving his vehicle in the Town of Colonie, Albany County when he collided with several vehicles — causing one to flip over — before hitting a curb and crashing into the foundation of a house. We acknowledge that the People were able to rely on the circumstantial evidence surrounding defendant’s conduct to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life … . Nevertheless, in reviewing these particular circumstances, we believe there is insufficient evidence to show that he was aware of, appreciated and disregarded the risks caused by his behavior (see id.). It is uncontroverted that defendant was driving recklessly and that, in doing so, he caused significant property damage as well as various degrees of injury to the victims. However, throughout this ordeal, which lasted less than five minutes and spanned less than half a mile, defendant was not driving well in excess of the posted speed limit, and there is no evidence that he ever drove against oncoming traffic or failed to obey traffic lights … . Even viewing the particular circumstances here in the light most favorable to the People, we do not believe that this case presents one of the rare circumstances where “the mens rea of depraved indifference . . . [is] established by risky behavior alone” … . People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof necessary for the “depraved indifference” element of reckless endangerment first degree in context of reckless driving.​

 

, ,

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant’s second motion to vacate his murder conviction (by guilty plea) based on his attorney’s erroneously informing him he would be eligible for parole haff-way through the 15-year sentence required a hearing. Defendant had made a prior motion on the same ground which was denied by another judge. The Third Department noted that ordinarily the prior motion would preclude the instant motion, but irregularities in the prior order denying the motion and the facts asserted in support of the instant motion justified giving the defendant a second chance:

… [T]he Legislature anticipated there would be times when it would be appropriate to reconsider issues previously decided on the merits (see CPL 440.10 [3] …). Doubtless those times should be rare; but, in our view, this is one of them.

Critically, the instant motion includes witness affidavits affirming that counsel assured defendant that he would be eligible for parole review as early as halfway through his minimum 15-year term of imprisonment (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]; compare CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Also attached is correspondence between defendant and counsel from December 2020. In one letter, defendant asks why counsel advised him that he would be eligible for early parole; counsel’s response does not address defendant’s question. Given defendant’s submissions, plus his relatively young age and inexperience with the criminal justice system at the time of his guilty plea, along with the irregularities in the June 2020 order, summary denial of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, in the exercise of our broad authority to substitute our discretion for that of County Court … , we set aside the procedural bars to relief on the issue of counsel’s alleged erroneous parole advice and remit the matter for a hearing … . People v Phelps, 2025 NY Slip Op 01680, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Here irregularities in the order denying defendant’s first motion to vacate his conviction and the facts presented in support of defendant’s second motion on the same ground justified consideration of the second motion.​

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets had jurisdiction over the matter and had the authority to determine a farm located in the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve (Central Pine Barrens) was not running a commercial mulching operation in violation of the Code of the Town of Brookhaven:

Respondent Delea Sod Farms, Inc. (hereinafter Delea Farms) operates a farm in an agricultural district in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, where it primarily produces sod for sale that is used at, among other places, Yankee Stadium. Mulch and compost are stored and sold at the farm as well. The farm also lies within the Central Pine Barrens area as defined by the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act (ECL 57-0101 et seq. [hereinafter the Pine Barrens Act]), the Pine Barrens being an environmentally sensitive area of Long Island that contains an aquifer from which many locals obtain drinking water and is subject to “laws and policies . . . at all government levels to protect [it] from unbridled development” (… see also ECL 57-0107 [10]). Petitioner sued Delea Farms in March 2020 to enjoin it from running what was, in petitioner’s view, a commercial mulching operation that allegedly ran afoul of the farmland bill of rights and zoning regulations contained in the Code of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Town Code) as well as the terms of a conditional discharge entered following a 2017 guilty plea by Delea Farms in a code enforcement matter. Delea Farms reacted by requesting an informal opinion from respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets as to whether its storage and sale of compost and mulch on the farm was “agricultural in nature” within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 308 (4). The Commissioner issued an opinion in July 2020 that the storage and sale of mulch and compost was an incidental agricultural use to the production and sale of sod at the farm. * * *

The Commissioner determined that Delea Farms was primarily operating the farm for sod production and harvesting, that it was not manufacturing or processing mulch at the farm and that the mulch and compost at the farm was either used on the farm itself or sold to customers who needed it to install the sod and nursery stock that was the farm’s actual focus. Matter of Town of Brookhaven v Ball, 2025 NY Slip Op 01686, Third Dept 3-20-25

 

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S CONCLUSION THAT CLAIMANT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER RESCUE AND CLEANUP OPERATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board’s conclusion that claimant did not participate in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the World Trade Center (WTC) was not supported by the evidence:

… [C]laimant testified that, during her October 2001 and December 2001 assignments, she was assigned to the NYPD’s command center for the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations. The command center was located 600 feet from the WTC site and there were areas set up at the command center for claimant and others to provide mental health support to police and fire department personnel working on the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the site. According to claimant, she would respond to calls concerning distressed workers and those individuals would be brought to the command center or claimant would go the rubble pile where they were working. Claimant would do an assessment as to the extent of the individual’s mental health condition and determine whether the individual could continue working or be taken off line and provided mental health treatment through the NYPD employee assistance program. McArdle [NYPD on-site coordinator] testified that he remembered claimant being at the command center and providing support to those working in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operation and that she was “well received” by the NYPD. McArdle further testified that identifying those individuals who needed to be taken off line for treatment was instrumental in continuing the operation and that many of those individuals were able to return to the operation after treatment. Matter of Goss v WTC Volunteer, 2025 NY Slip Op 01413, Third Dept 3-13-25

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE APPOINTED STANDBY COUNSEL AS DEFENDANT REQUESTED, THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge did not conduct an adequate inquiry before granting defendant’s request to represent himself. The appointment of standby counsel is not a substitute for an inquiry to make sure a defendant understands the risks:

… [D]efendant repeatedly conditioned his request on proceeding pro se “with standby [counsel].” In response to defendant’s request, County Court inquired as to whether defendant knew the rule regarding standby counsel. Although defendant replied in the negative, the court provided no further explanation and, instead, proceeded to question defendant about his knowledge of the law. Following a week-long adjournment for defendant to confer with counsel regarding his request to proceed pro se, at the next court appearance, defendant reaffirmed his desire to proceed pro se with standby counsel. Although the court informed defendant that he did not qualify for standby counsel because he seemed to be familiar with some legal terms, defendant responded that he was requesting standby counsel because he does not know everything in the law. The record does not otherwise reflect that defendant was informed of or understood that, despite being permitted to proceed with standby counsel, there were risks inherent in proceeding pro se. Upon this record, we conclude that County Court’s inquiry was insufficient to establish that defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and voluntary and, accordingly, the plea must be vacated … . People v Gray, 2025 NY Slip Op 01259, Third Dept 3-6-25

Practice Point: The appointment of standby counsel is not a substitute for a judge’s responsibility to make an inquiry to ensure the defendant is aware of the risks of representing himself.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL THERE WAS NO APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined that the heightened definition of “impaired” which has been applied to a vehicular manslaughter charge need not be applied to driving while ability impaired by drugs or a combination thereof, the charges against defendant here. Therefore the failure to request that the jury be instructed to apply the heightened definition of impaired did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel:

At the time of defendant’s trial, there was no appellate authority which warranted a jury instruction concerning the heightened intoxication standard relative to the crimes that were pending against defendant. In Caden N. [189 AD3d 84], this Court, by its own express language, limited its holding to the crime of vehicular manslaughter, which of course is not present here. That is, this Court was careful to state that it was defining impairment “in the context of assessing whether a person has committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree” (People v Caden N., 189 AD3d at 90). In the event that this Court had also wished to apply the new definition of impairment to the underlying crimes of driving while ability impaired by drugs or by a combination thereof, it surely would have explicitly stated as much. * * *

In the absence of any such authority, defense counsel properly acquiesced to the jury being charged in accordance with the definition of impairment that was provided in the Criminal Jury Instructions as of that time. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any reasonable defense counsel would have requested the intoxication instruction in place of the impairment instruction, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to do so. People v Ambrosio, 2025 NY Slip Op 01133, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: The Third Department has applied a heightened definition of impairment for vehicular manslaughter cases. The Fourth Department refused to follow suit. The law in this area is in flux.

 

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