You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

DEFENDANT’S PLEA TO A PROBATION VIOLATION WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s plea to a probation violation was involuntary and must be vacated:

The record reflects that the People’s final plea offer came with a prison sentence of 1½ years followed by six years of PRS. When defendant indicated that he wanted to admit to the probation violation and argue for a more lenient sentence, County Court stated that it could not “override” the recommended sentence unless defendant declined the offer and proceeded to a hearing. The court further told defendant that, if he took the offer, it was “up to the People” as to whether a lesser sentence could be considered. The People then turned down defendant’s proposal to cap his sentencing exposure at 1½ years in prison and stated that they would recommend a higher sentence if defendant rejected the offer and were found guilty following a hearing. Defendant thereafter accepted the offer.

The foregoing reflects, and the People concede, that County Court abdicated its responsibility to carefully consider all facts available at the time of sentencing and fashion an appropriate sentence …. Inasmuch as the proceedings were also marred by the People’s admittedly inappropriate threat to seek a harsher sentence if defendant rejected the offer and was found guilty after a hearing, however, the plea itself was involuntary. Thus, defendant is entitled to vacatur of his plea … , People v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07448, Third Dept 10-17-19

,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS CONCEALING DRUGS ON HIS PERSON WHEN THEY CONDUCTED A STRIP SEARCH, DRUGS SEIZED DURING THE STRIP SEARCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s drug-possession conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion defendant was concealing drugs on his person at the time of the strip search. The drugs found in the search should have been suppressed:

Strip searches “cannot be routinely undertaken as incident to all drug arrests,” but must be based on “specific and articulable facts which, along with any logical deductions, reasonably prompted the intrusion” … . Courts consider several factors when determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct “a strip search, including the defendant’s excessive nervousness, unusual conduct, information showing pertinent criminal propensities, informant’s tips, loose-fitting or bulky clothing, an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing, incriminating matter discovered during a less intrusive search, lack of employment, indications of drug addiction, information derived from others arrested or searched contemporaneously, and evasive or contradictory answers to questions” … . * * *

Based on the information that Tibbs planned to purchase cocaine from Pinkney, made the round trip to New York City and routinely went to defendant’s apartment after such purchases to cook the powder cocaine into crack cocaine, along with other evidence of the conspiracy that had been ongoing for months, the officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a conspiracy offense.

The evidence at the hearing did not, however, support a strip search. The officers knew that Tibbs had purchased a large quantity of cocaine and that drug traffickers frequently secrete narcotics on their person. Yet they could not identify the other people who were in the vehicle when it returned from New York City, leaving no proof that defendant had accompanied Tibbs to purchase the drugs. People v Turner, 2019 NY Slip Op 07443, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BASED UPON AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL MATTER BEFORE THE CHILD WAS BORN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined an order of protective issue in a criminal proceeding before the child was born did not prohibit contact between the child and father. Father’s petition seeking custody and/or parenting time should not have been dismissed on that ground:

At the initial appearance on the petition, Family Court stated that the order of protection had been issued in a criminal matter and that it barred the putative father from having any direct or indirect contact with the mother. The mother then moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the order of protection rendered the petition moot. Family Court agreed and granted the motion. The putative father appeals.

The order of protection at issue — a copy of which is not in the record but the terms of which we take judicial notice — was issued prior to the child’s birth and does not bar the putative father from having contact with the child. It is not, as a result, fatal to the putative father’s petition … . Remittal is therefore required for Family Court to consider whether an order of filiation should be issued (see Family Ct Act § 564) and, if so, whether contact with the putative father would be in the best interests of the child and could be accomplished without contravening the terms of the order of protection … . Matter of Justin M. v Valencia N., 2019 NY Slip Op 07453, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED AWARDING CUSTODY TO STEPMOTHER WITH VISITATION BY BOTH PARENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that extraordinary circumstances warranted awarding custody of the child to the stepmother with visitation from both parents. The child had been living with father and stepmother for years when father moved out:

… [T]he child was residing with the other parent — the father — pursuant to a court order. The mother did not originally expressly relinquish the child to the stepmother. Rather, the stepmother assumed parental responsibilities due to her relationship with the father and based on his custodial authority. Nevertheless, in considering the cumulative effect of all the issues, we note that the mother had very little contact with the child for five years, including not seeing him at all for three continuous years, while the child was at a formative age and being raised by the father and the stepmother. Starting in 2012, the mother began consistently exercising her visitation and has continued to do so. However, the mother remained uninvolved in the child’s medical and educational life and was only minimally involved in his extracurricular activities. * * *

Moving to the best interests of the child, he has lived with the stepmother since he was a toddler, has a close bond with her and was described as inseparable from his half brother, who also lives with them. The child has always attended schools in the same district, has an educational plan to address his difficulties, participates in sports in that district and all of his friends are there. The mother lives in a different school district. The stepmother has been managing the child’s medical conditions for a decade, whereas the mother did not even know the names of his doctors. The stepmother has been communicating with the mother regarding visits and providing the majority of the transportation; the mother has no vehicle and her driver’s license is suspended, although she drove to drop the child off on at least some occasions. Matter of Shanna O. v James P., 2019 NY Slip Op 07455, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NY BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ CHARTER SCHOOL COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHERS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, after finding the petitioners in one of the two actions had the capacity to sue and standing, determined the State University of New York Board of Trustees’ Charter School Committee (the Committee) did not have the authority to promulgate regulations changing the teacher certification requirements for teachers in certain charter schools:

… [I]t is a basic principle of administrative law that an agency has only “those powers expressly conferred by its authorizing statute, as well as those required by necessary implication” … . Education Law § 355 (2-a) authorizes the Committee, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, . . . to promulgate regulations with respect to governance, structure and operations of [SUNY-authorized] charter schools.” Respondents assert that the regulations fall within this statutory authorization because teacher licensure pertains to the “operation” of SUNY-authorized charter schools. In analyzing this claim, we need not defer to the Committee’s interpretation of the Education Law, as “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . * * *

We … conclude that the inclusion of the word “operation” in Education Law § 355 (2-a) does not authorize the Committee to promulgate regulations pertaining to teacher licensure and certification. We further find that the regulations conflict with provisions of the Education Law that authorize the Commissioner to prescribe regulations governing the certification of teachers and that require most teachers in charter schools and pre-kindergartens to be certified in the same manner as other public school teachers … . The Committee therefore exceeded its authority in promulgating the regulations … . Matter of New York State Bd. of Regents v State Univ. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 07458, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

FIRING A SHOTGUN THROUGH A SCREEN DOOR INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THE CHILD WAS NOT HOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect finding against father was not supported by the evidence. Father fired a shotgun through the front door into the driveway when the child was not home. The fact that the child could have returned home and could have been in the driveway was not sufficient:

Although a finding of imminent danger can be established through a single incident or circumstance, the danger “must be near or impending, not merely possible” … . As such, it has been held that a finding of imminent danger is contingent on the child being present … .

Here, it is undisputed that the child was not present during the shooting. Despite this, petitioner and the attorney for the child argue that the child and the mother could have returned to the home at any time and traveled through the likely path of the shotgun pellets. However, this did not occur, nor can such danger be said to have been imminent as it was only hypothetical, rather than “near or impending” … . Put another way, the issue is not that there was no imminent risk because, fortuitously, nothing happened to the child, but rather that nothing could have happened under the particular scenario because the child was not home … . “While respondent’s conduct was far from ideal and it is possible to speculate about ways that events could have turned out differently for the child[], nonetheless, the record fails to establish that the child[] [was] in imminent danger” … . Matter of Jordyn WW. (Tyrell WW.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07460, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

,

A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SUB-PAR PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT SOUNDS IN CONTRACT LAW, NOT NEGLIGENCE; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the negligence cause of action was really a breach of contract action and therefore the negligence cause of action should have been dismissed. The underlying contract was for demolition and construction work and the complaint alleged damage by the diversion of water:

… [W]e agree with J. Luke [defendant demolition-construction contractor] that  [the negligence cause of action] should have been dismissed. Town Homes [defendant property owner] denominated that claim as one for negligence, alleging that J. Luke deviated from accepted standards of care by failing to perform contracted-for demolition and construction work “in a good workmanlike manner.” Supreme Court correctly categorized those assertions as a claim for negligent performance of contract; the problem is “that a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . A failure to plead a cognizable claim would not warrant summary judgment if Town Homes subsequently made out a viable cause of action … . Town Homes never suggested that J. Luke owed it a duty of care independent from the contract, however, and confirmed in its opposition to J. Luke’s motion that the issue was whether J. Luke rendered subpar performance under the contract. Accordingly, in the absence of any indication that J. Luke owed an independent duty to Town Homes arising “from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract” … . 517 Union St. Assoc. LLC v Town Homes of Union Sq. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07461, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, , , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFFECTED THE MERITS OF THE CASE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND THE RELATED ORDER IS A NULLITY; THE APPEAL THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the death of a party to this foreclosure proceeding deprived the court of jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have considered defendant’s motion and the related order was a nullity:

In 2003, defendant Sharon A. Harris (hereinafter defendant) and defendant Marion D. Schubnel executed a note in favor of plaintiff that was secured by a mortgage on real property located in Albany County. Defendant and Schubnel owned the subject property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. …

… [P]laintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against defendant and Schubnel, among others. Defendant served an answer but Schubnel failed to do so. In November 2016, Schubnel died. In July 2017, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and, as relevant here, sought to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense. In an amended order entered November 2017, Supreme Court granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as time-barred. …

The death of a party generally stays an action until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased party … . Strict adherence to this rule, however, is unnecessary where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of the case … .

It is true that defendant, as the surviving joint tenant, obtained Schubnel’s interest in the subject property upon Schubnel’s death. Notwithstanding this transfer of interest, Schubnel’s estate can still be held liable for any deficiency in the event that a sale of the subject property fails to satisfy the debt. Indeed, the complaint specifically requests that such relief be granted should it be necessary … . In the absence of a substitution of Schubnel, a discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against Schubnel or a representation by plaintiff that it would be waiving its right to seek a deficiency judgment against Schubnel, the death of Schubnel affects the merits of the case … . Because an automatic stay was in effect upon Schubnel’s death, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion and, therefore, the November 2017 amended order is a nullity … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schubnel, 2019 NY Slip Op 07462, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the petition, determined that respondent, who had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, was not provided sufficient information before admitting to a probation violation. Because of the collateral consequences of a “juvenile delinquent” adjudication, the appeal is not moot, even though the period of respondent’s custody and care under the Office of Children and Family Services had expired. In addition, the error did not required preservation:

Initially, we note that preservation of this claim was not required … . Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) requires a court to advise a respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and to question both the respondent and his or her parent, if present, as to whether the respondent committed the act contained in the admission, whether the respondent is voluntarily waiving his or her right to a fact-finding hearing, and whether the respondent is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders … . The May 2018 allocution did not meet these statutory requirements. Although Family Court did advise respondent, to some extent, regarding his rights, the failure to meet the statutory mandates rendered the allocution inadequate. Critically, although respondent’s mother was present, the court failed to question her regarding respondent’s waiver of the fact-finding hearing … or about his failure to attend counseling. Instead, respondent was merely asked whether he had sufficient time to speak to his parents about the allocution … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether respondent and his mother understood the possible specific dispositional orders that might result from his allocution … . Although it was stated that placement outside the home was an available option, the court did not “ascertain whether [respondent] and his parent[] were aware of the full extent of such a disposition” … . Matter of Elijah X., 2019 NY Slip Op 07464, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALTHOUGH POORLY DRAFTED, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEPARTED FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A SPINAL FUSION PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert affidavit submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, although not well-drafted, raised a question of fact whether defendants’ departed from the standard of care for the placement of hardware in a spinal fusion procedure:

… [P]laintiff submitted the expert affidavit of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who opined, based upon his review of the relevant medical records and radiological images, including a CT scan taken shortly after the surgery, that Pedersen had improperly positioned the L4 pedicle screws into the L3-L4 facet joint and that such improper placement constituted a deviation from the standard of care that ultimately caused Yerich to develop spinal and foraminal stenosis at L3-L4. Plaintiffs’ expert asserted that placing pedicle screws through the facet joints causes “damage[ to] the joint, reduces movement, [and] makes the spine unstable[,] which results in . . . spinal stenosis and foraminal stenosis requiring fusion,” as happened here. Although plaintiffs’ expert affidavit is not a model of precise drafting, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs …, we find that plaintiffs’ expert affidavit raises a question of fact as to whether Pedersen improperly positioned the L4 pedicle screws through the facet joint, thereby causing injury. Yerich v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2019 NY Slip Op 07466, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

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