You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY IN CREATING THE HOST FAMILY PROGRAM FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) did not exceed its authority when creating the Host Family Home program for temporary placement of children and families. The appellants argued the Host Family Home program was essentially a foster care program without the legislative foster-care safeguards:

The subject regulations established the Host Family Home program (see 18 NYCRR 444.1), which aims to provide “supportive services . . . to children and their families . . . for the purpose of: assisting a family in need of day-to-day community-based supports by peers, arranging for parents and children to be temporarily cared for together in a host family home, and/or temporarily supporting a family when a parent has determined that he/she is temporarily unable to care for their child . . . as a way to avert the need for more formal child welfare intervention” … . * * *

Petitioners’ argument that OCFS exceeded its authority when it created the Host Family Home program is unpersuasive. “Administrative agencies have all the powers expressly delegated to them by the Legislature, and are permitted to adopt regulations that go beyond the text of their enabling legislation, so long as those regulations are consistent with the statutory language and underlying purpose” … . “While an administrative agency may not, in the exercise of rule-making authority, engage in broad-based public policy determinations, the cornerstone of administrative law is the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” … . * * *

On balance, the Boreali factors [Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1] lead us to the conclusion that the Host Family Home program regulations are a valid exercise of OCFS’s rulemaking authority, bringing an end to our inquiry. We emphasize that “[o]ur role in this regard is not to question the efficacy or wisdom of the means chosen by the agency to accomplish the ends identified by the [L]egislature” … . As we have also found that the regulations are consistent with the governing statutory language and its purpose, we affirm. Matter of Lawyers for Children v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 02115, Third Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the authority of an agency to promulgate regulations.

 

, , ,

THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing to foreclose. The note was endorsed in blank, meaning that it was payable to any bearer of the instrument. Therefore the plaintiff was required to show possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. The evidence submitted was insufficient:

Despite being the originator of the note, the record fails to demonstrate whether plaintiff reacquired the note prior to commencement of this action in order to satisfy its moving burden. Plaintiff’s reliance on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Venture (148 AD3d 1269, 1270-1271 [3d Dept 2017]) is misplaced. Although the type of indorsement was not identified in the decision that was handed down, we take judicial notice of the record filed in that matter and confirm that the note annexed to the complaint in Venture contained a special indorsement payable to only plaintiff … . This is materially different than here, where the note was indorsed in blank, meaning it was payable to any bearer of the instrument (see UCC 1-201 [b] [21] [B]), therefore requiring plaintiff to perform the additional step of proving possession at the time of commencement … . Neither the moving attorney affirmation nor the affidavit of merit for the loan servicer/attorney-in-fact are sufficient to do so. We further reject plaintiff’s contention that the complaint was sufficient to establish possession of the note at commencement, as the complaint contained conflicting allegations and was unverified, and therefore it lacked the evidentiary value to support such claim … . United Wholesale Mtge., LLC v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 02117, Third Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof required to demonstrate a note, endorsed in blank, was possessed by the plaintiff at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. If the defendant raises plaintiff’s lack of standing as an issue, the plaintiff must prove possession at commencement in order to proceed.​

 

, ,

THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PROPERTY-TAX-ASSESSMENT PURPOSES IS A RECENT ARMS-LENGTH SALE; ASSESSMENT REDUCED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and lowering the property tax assessment of petitioners’ property, determined the best evidence of the value of the property is an arms-length sale for an amount $750,000 less than the assessment:

“In an RPTL article 7 tax certiorari proceeding, a rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to the valuation of property made by the taxing authority” … . Therefore, on a summary judgment motion, a petitioner bears the initial burden of “presenting substantial evidence to demonstrate that the subject property was overvalued” … . In considering whether this minimal threshold has been met … , “[i]t is well settled that the best evidence of market value is a recent sale of the subject property between a seller under no compulsion to sell and a buyer under no compulsion to buy” … .

Petitioners submitted evidence that the December 20, 2020 sale for $3,495,000, occurring 18 months prior to the July 1, 2022 valuation date, was carried out at arm’s length. This was sufficient to rebut the presumption of the assessment’s validity and to satisfy petitioners’ burden on summary judgment … . …

… [R]espondents provided no support for their valuation of $4,257,000, a 22% increase in value since the sale just 18 months prior … . The assessor’s broad claim that the market for properties such as this one “rose remarkably” during that time was conclusory … , and his assertion regarding the types of approaches “[g]enerally” used to establish fair market value did not indicate whether either or both of those approaches were used in this particular instance. The fact that respondents engaged an outside appraisal firm while completing their town-wide revaluation is also of no moment, as respondents did not show how that firm evaluated this particular property or what conclusions it reached. As such, petitioners’ motion should have been granted … . Matter of Robins v Board of Assessment Review, 2025 NY Slip Op 02119, Third Dept 4-9-25

Practice Point: Here the tax assessor’s claim that property values had risen “remarkably” did not raise a question of fact in this tax certiorari proceeding seeking a reduction of the property-tax assessment. The best evidence of the value of the property was deemed to be the amount of a recent arms-length sale of the property.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLOWED EVIDENCE PRECLUDED BY A SANDOVAL RULING TO COME IN, AND DID NOT OBJECT TO HEARSAY WHICH REFUTED DEFENDANT’S ALIBI; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for allowing the introduction of evidence which violated a Sandoval ruling. The court ruled the People could not introduce evidence of defendant’s rape conviction. But the People elicited testimony from defendant’s parole officer (Kellett) indicating defendant was a sex offender. In addition, hearsay testimony which refuted an alibi defendant did not attempt to present at trial was allowed in without objection by defense counsel:

Kellett’s testimony effectively circumvented the court’s earlier Sandoval ruling precluding the introduction of defendant’s past rape conviction by allowing her to testify that defendant was a sex offender … . The People had already affirmed on the record that they would not seek to introduce the basis for defendant’s parole supervision, and defendant had consented to this so long as the testimony be restricted and a limiting instruction provided. The details offered by Kellett were not necessary to establish defendant’s status as a parolee, as she could have merely testified that defendant was under parole supervision without elaborating upon his status as a sex offender. Despite the crimes charged not being of a sexual nature, the testimony in question introduced highly prejudicial information that “ha[d] no purpose other than to show that . . . defendant is of a criminal bent or character and thus likely to have committed the crime[s] charged” … . However, trial counsel made no objection to this testimony or, in the alternative, no request for a curative instruction. Thus, the prejudice resulting from this testimony was not dissipated “by promptly and clearly advising the jury that the comments were improper and should be completely disregarded” … . * * *

Although we find this error on the part of trial counsel to have, by itself, deprived defendant of a fair trial … , we would be remiss not to briefly address trial counsel’s failure to object to law enforcement testimony describing interviews with individuals who refuted defendant’s previously claimed alibi. This testimony presented arguably inadmissible evidence of a hearsay nature, which defendant claims presented a Crawford violation … . However, trial counsel lodged no objection, essentially allowing defendant to be impeached regarding an alibi he did not attempt to present at trial. People v Franklin, 2025 NY Slip Op 01975, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here a Sandoval ruling excluded evidence defendant had been convicted of rape but the People, through defendant’s parole officer, introduced evidence defendant was a sex offender. Defense counsel did not object. The failure to object was deemed ineffective assistance requiring a new trial.

 

, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, DID NOT OBJECT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, AND ALLOWED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CRIMES TO COME IN DESPITE A SANDOVAL RULING KEEPING IT OUT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this sex-offense case and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel did not provide effective assistance. Defense counsel vouched for the credibility of the victim and allowed evidence of defendant’s prior crimes to come in, despite a Sandoval ruling keeping it out:

… [D]uring counsel’s opening statement, he commented that, in his training representing victims of sexual assault, “the first thing I had to do was believe the accuser. I didn’t have a problem with that. I mean, why would someone make up an important detail or leave out certain details and accuse someone of a crime like rape?” Not only did counsel seemingly vouch for the victim’s credibility in this first opportunity to address the jury, but he also did the same in his summation, again reminding the jury that he had represented victims of sexual assault, stating that he “start[s] by believing it. I don’t sense any ill will from [the victim]” and that he knew “a verdict of not guilty in this case is not going to make anyone happy.” … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel elicited testimony that defendant had been in and out of jail for 10 years, was a regular drug user, had sold cocaine before and was a parolee who was violating parole conditions by being out past curfew as well as consuming alcohol and cocaine … on the night of the incident. Thereafter, when defendant chose to testify as to his version of events, County Court determined that since defense counsel had questioned the friend regarding defendant having been on parole at the time of the incident and in and out of prison for 10 years, the door had been opened for the People to pursue those lines of questioning with defendant on cross-examination. * * *

Compounding these errors, during the People’s summation, the prosecutor repeatedly improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility … , without objection from defense counsel, one time going so far as to say that the victim “testified credibly, consistently, believably and authentically.” Defense counsel’s failure to object to this repeated vouching is even more problematic given his own insinuations that the victim, as a sexual assault victim, should be believed. People v Monk, 2025 NY Slip Op 01976, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: It is difficult to think of a defense trial strategy that would include vouching for the credibility of the victim in a sex offense case. It is difficult to think of a defense trial strategy that would include allowing evidence of defendant’s prior crimes, which was the subject of a Sandoval ruling keeping it out, to come in. A trial, first and foremost, is an adversarial proceeding.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL, AND DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE WINNING ARGUMENT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT GRANTED DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO REMOVE THE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION FROM HIS SENTENCE; THE OFFENSE OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s judgment of conviction and reinstating it without the sex-offender certification, determined the offense of which defendant was convicted, burglary third degree as a sexually motivated felony, is not a registrable offense under the Correction Law. The court noted that a sex-offender certification is part of the sentence and therefore should have been challenged on direct appeal. Because an appeal is no longer possible, the court accepted the motion to vacate as an appropriate mechanism for correcting the error. Although the court rejected defendant’s “ineffective assistance of counsel” argument, it still granted the relief defendant sought on the constitutional ground that defendant has a “liberty interest” in not being misclassified as a sex offender:

Although defendant did not expressly raise such grounds in his motion, we note the People’s concession at oral argument that, in advocating that defendant pursue a different procedural course to obtain the requested relief, they do not oppose the ultimate result sought by defendant — the vacatur of the provisions of his judgment certifying him as a sex offender. * * * … [B]earing in mind that no party disputes that defendant should be afforded the discrete relief that he seeks in this proceeding and that defendant’s motion broadly seeks relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), we believe it appropriate, in the interest of judicial economy, to address this matter now rather than require defendant to file a new motion asserting a different constitutional basis for the same relief. We therefore exercise our discretion, in the interest of justice, and grant defendant’s motion, vacate the judgment, and thereafter reinstate the judgment without the provisions thereof certifying defendant as a sex offender pursuant to SORA and requiring him to pay the $50 sex offender registration fee … . People v Richardson, 2025 NY Slip Op 01980, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here is a rare instance of an appellate court’s overlooking defendant’s failure to raise the sex-offender-misclassification issue on direct appeal and defendant’s failure to raise the winning constitutional argument in the motion to vacate the conviction. The reason? No one objected to the relief defendant sought, i.e. correction of the misclassification of the defendant as a sex offender. The objections were to the mechanism used to request the relief.

 

​

, , , ,

ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s issuing a ruling awarding custody to father before father’s direct testimony had been completed violated due process:

The parties, as well as the attorney for the child, share the view that Family Court improperly ended the hearing before its completion, and we agree. At a hearing on an initial custody determination, due process requires that each party be provided a full and fair opportunity to be heard … . The parties must be permitted to present evidence on their own behalf and ” ‘cross-examine . . . key witness[es]’ ” … . Aside from due process considerations, a court’s “abrupt termination of the proceedings [may] preclude[ ] a meaningful best interests analysis, leaving the court . . . with insufficient information upon which to reach a reasoned conclusion” … .

Recognizing that this custody proceeding largely turned upon the credibility of the mother and the father, each of whom alleged that the other was an unfit parent, Family Court deprived both parties of a full and fair opportunity to be heard by inexplicably cutting off the father’s direct testimony and failing to allow any cross-examination of him. Further, given that the court granted the father sole legal and primary physical custody of the child in the face of the mother’s allegations that the father had committed numerous acts of domestic violence, including in front of the child, the court’s failure to allow cross-examination of the father deprived it of sufficient information to perform a meaningful best interests analysis … . Accordingly, we reverse and remit for a new fact-finding hearing … . Matter of Casey Q. v Jeffrey O., 2025 NY Slip Op 01981, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here in this child custody dispute, the judge issued a ruling awarding custody to father before father had completed his direct testimony. The premature ruling deprived the parties of due process of law.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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