You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE EXPERT TESTIMONY PLAINTIFF COULD OFFER AT TRIAL DID NOT LIMIT THE ISSUES TO BE TRIED; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST AWAIT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant doctor could not appeal the denial of defendant’s motion to limit the expert testimony which plaintiff could offer at trial in this medical malpractice action. The motion court’s ruling did not limit the issues to be tried. Therefore an appeal must be brought after trial:

It is well settled that “an order which merely determines the admissibility of evidence, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . Here, Supreme Court’s decision merely permits the infant to offer various testimony of his expert witnesses and does not limit the scope of issues to be tried … . Therefore, appellate review of the court’s ruling “must await the conclusion of a trial so that the relevance of the proffered evidence, and the effect of [the court’s] ruling with respect thereto, can be assessed in the context of the record as a whole” … . Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed … . C.H. v Dolkart, 2019 NY Slip Op 05614, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR LETTING PLAINTIFF USE A SCISSORS LIFT SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY ENTRUSTED THE LIFT TO HIM, KNOWING HE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO OPERATE IT; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE LIFT TIPPED OVER AND PLAINTIFF FELL 25 FEET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant building contractor negligently entrusted a scissors lift to plaintiff, who was injured when the lift tipped over:

Given the testimony regarding plaintiff’s alleged lack of experience operating the subject scissor lift, the alleged observations by defendant’s employees of plaintiff’s operation thereof, Reagles’ [defendant’s project superintendent’s] assumption as to plaintiff’s level of training and his subsequent knowledge that an employee of defendant was allegedly made aware, prior to the accident, that plaintiff was not familiar with and/or trained in the use and operation of the scissor lift, we find that defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing the absence of a triable issue of fact, specifically as to whether defendant knew or should have known that plaintiff lacked the requisite training and experience necessary to safely operate the subject scissor lift at the time it was entrusted to him, rendering his subsequent use thereof unreasonably dangerous … . Moreover, the issue of proximate cause is generally more appropriately resolved by the trier of fact … . Further, although it is undisputed that plaintiff was the sole operator of the scissor lift, we find a question of fact also exists as to whether plaintiff’s injuries were a foreseeable result of defendant’s negligent entrustment of the lift to plaintiff … . Hull v The Pike Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 05611, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

, ,

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rumsey, determined that the special prosecutor did not have the authority to prosecute a substance abuse counselor who allegedly sexually abused a 16-year-old patient. The special prosecutor was from the Justice Center for Protection of People with Special Needs. Because the special prosecutor did not have have the knowing and express consent to the prosecution by the district attorney, the indictment was dismissed:

In 2012, the Legislature enacted the Protection of People with Special Needs Act (Executive Law § 550 et seq.) to protect individuals “who are vulnerable because of their reliance on professional caregivers to help them overcome physical, cognitive and other challenges” … by creating a new state agency, the Justice Center, and mandating, among other things, that it employ a special prosecutor appointed by the Governor (hereinafter the Special Prosecutor) to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses involving abuse and neglect of vulnerable persons by employees of specified types of facilities and service agencies … . Although the Act specifically authorizes the Special Prosecutor to “exercise all the powers and perform all the duties in respect of such actions or proceedings which the district attorney would otherwise be authorized or required to exercise or perform”… , it also prohibits the Special Prosecutor from “interfer[ing] with the ability of district attorneys at any time to receive complaints, investigate and prosecute any suspected abuse or neglect” … . …

… [T]here is no constitutional support for the Legislature’s attempt to provide for “the gubernatorial appointment of a non-elected special prosecutor, independent of the [d]istrict [a]ttorneys and with unfettered prosecutorial power” … . …

We turn … to consideration of whether the Albany County District Attorney validly consented to prosecution of defendant by the Special Prosecutor. … [T]he District Attorney did not exercise his essential prosecutorial power to determine whether defendant should be prosecuted but, rather, merely acquiesced in the prosecution by the Special Prosecutor, whom he mistakenly believed already possessed the independent power to prosecute defendant. Second, the District Attorney failed to expressly retain ultimate responsibility for defendant’s prosecution … . People v Hodgdon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05596, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

,

EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED AT AND THE EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE SARATOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in affirming defendant’s predatory sexual assault against a child and child pornography convictions, noted that evidence was seized from the Saratoga County Public Defender’s Office and the evidence was admissible at trial pursuant to the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The facts are not described in any detail:

Defendant … contends that County Court improperly denied his motion to suppress items seized from the Saratoga County Public Defender’s office * * *.  … [U]pon review of the search warrant application and accompanying sworn statements, we conclude that County Court properly determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant … . With respect to defendant’s claim of attorney-client privilege, we find that the crime-fraud exception applied because there was reasonable cause to believe that the items seized pursuant to the search warrant constituted physical evidence of a crime and that their delivery to counsel was for the purpose of concealing evidence, not for seeking legal advice … . People v Gannon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05591, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE RECORD SUPPORTED COUNTY COURT’S CONCLUSION THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS A ‘PRETEXT’ FOR A SEARCH FOR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in this appeal by the People, determined that the search of defendant’s vehicle was not a valid inventory search and the related suppression motion was properly granted:

Although not fatal to the establishment of a valid inventory search … , the People did not admit the relevant tow and impound policy into evidence. The People also failed to ask any substantive questions of the deputy sheriff to establish that the policy was sufficiently standardized, that it was reasonable and that the deputy sheriff followed it in this case. The deputy sheriff only vaguely stated that he conducted the inventory search, radioed for a tow truck and completed the vehicle impound inventory report in accordance with the policy. Further, although the deputy sheriff filled out the impound inventory report, which indicates that the inventory search began at 9:55 a.m., he testified that the search began prior to that time and did not provide any explanation for the discrepancy. Moreover, there was contradictory testimony as to where the deputy sheriff found defendant’s wallet — inside the vehicle or on defendant’s person. Significantly, if defendant’s wallet was inside the vehicle, as the deputy sheriff testified that it was, then the deputy sheriff allegedly took the wallet out of the vehicle but did not include it in the vehicle impound inventory report. In short, the People did not establish the circumstances under which searching the wallet and the closed trunk was justified under the policy … .

… [T]he record supports County Court’s conclusion that the alleged inventory search was a “pretext” to locate incriminating evidence. People v Espinoza, 2019 NY Slip Op 05592, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

, , , , ,

ARTICLE 78 ACTION SEEKING TO PROHIBIT THE TRIAL JUDGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE FROM EXCLUDING TESTIMONY AS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DISMISSED AS INAPPROPRIATE; MATTER CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Article 78 proceeding brought by the district attorney against the trial judge in a criminal case seeking prohibition should have been dismissed. The trial judge had ruled that the conversations between an attorney and the defendant at the scene of the crime were protected by attorney-client privilege. The Article 78 action sought to prohibit the trial judge from adhering to that ruling. At the time of this Article 78 proceeding the criminal trial was over and defendant had been convicted. The matter was considered as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and, in cases involving the exercise of judicial authority, “is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” … . Respondent had jurisdiction over the criminal action against Mercer … and was empowered to preclude Doyle from testifying about matters protected by the attorney-client privilege … . Petitioner’s core complaint is that respondent erred in determining the scope of that privilege, and she may be correct … . Nevertheless, “prohibition will not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however egregious the error may be, and however cleverly the error may be characterized by counsel as an excess of jurisdiction or power” … . To allow review of such matters would have an array of negative impacts, encouraging gamesmanship, “erect[ing] an additional avenue of judicial scrutiny in a collateral proceeding and . . . frustrat[ing] the statutory or even constitutional limits on review” … . Thus, inasmuch as petitioner does not point to “an unlawful use or abuse of the entire action or proceeding,” but rather “an unlawful procedure or error in the action or proceeding itself related to the proper purpose of the action or proceeding,” prohibition will not lie … . Matter of Heggen v Sise, 2019 NY Slip Op 05620, Third Dept 7-10-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THAT THE VALUE OF COMMON AREAS OF A DEVELOPMENT OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY PETITIONER HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WAS ZERO FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES BECAUSE OF ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE COMMON AREAS HAD BEEN RAISED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment finding that the value of the common areas of a development owned and maintained by petitioner homeowners’ association was zero because of encumbrances and restrictions on the property. Petitioner sought a reduction of the tax assessments pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL)  article 7. The town and the village had assessed the value of the common areas in the millions of dollars:

… [T]he declaration of protective covenants purports to impose a servitude upon the common area parcels in the nature of an easement or covenant that runs with the land; however, petitioner’s bylaws specifically state that individual lot owners “shall have a license to use the [c]ommon [a]reas.” To the extent that the corresponding deeds to the individual lot owners recite that each conveyance was made subject to both the declaration of protective covenants and petitioner’s bylaws, we now reiterate that “[s]uch a conflict in terminology does not lend itself to summary relief” … . …

… [P]etitioner failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the assessed property values of the individual lot owners within the development already include an enhanced value or premium sufficient to cover or offset the value of petitioner’s common area parcels. …

Nor did petitioner sufficiently establish that the subject common area parcels have zero or only nominal value. Indeed, “[i]t is possible that a parcel is so interwoven with a dominant estate that it has no extrinsic value that is available for tax purposes. If, however, it is shown that a servient parcel[, i.e., the common area parcels,] has substantial value, the land can be taxed despite its relationship to a dominant estate owned by a member of a community development” … . Matter of The Assn. of Prop. Owners of Sleepy Hollow Lake, Inc. v McBride, 2019 NY Slip Op 05371, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

SPECIAL FUND IS LIABLE FOR DEATH BENEFITS WHERE THE CLAIM WAS TRANSFERED TO THE SPECIAL FUND BEFORE THE FUND WAS CLOSED IN 2014 AND THE CLAIMANT DIED AFTER THE FUND WAS CLOSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that the Special Fund remained liable for death benefits if the matter had been transferred to the Special Fund before the 2014 closure of the fund. Here the asbestosis case was transferred to the Special Fund in 2011 and the claimant died in 2017:

… [T]he imposition of liability on the Special Fund in this case is not precluded by the statutory amendment [closing the Special Fund], given that liability was transferred to the Special Fund in December 2011, well before the January 1, 2014 closure date. The record does not indicate any violation of the plain language of the statutory sentence at issue. Indeed, the record does not contain a copy of any application by the employer for transfer of liability of a claim to the Special Fund, nor any indication that such an application was filed after January 1, 2014. Thus, the record does not support a finding of a violation of the statute prohibiting the Board from accepting, after the cut-off date, any application by an employer or carrier for transfer of liability of a claim to the Special Fund (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1-a]).

This conclusion is supported by our decision in Matter of Misquitta v Getty Petroleum (150 AD3d 1363[2017]), which involved a factual situation similar to that presented here. In Misquitta, the decedent had an established workers’ compensation claim that had been transferred to the Special Fund prior to his death and, after his death, his widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. While acknowledging that the consequential death claim was separate and distinct from the decedent’s original claim, this Court ruled that “where . . . liability for a claim has already been transferred from the carrier to the Special Fund and the employee thereafter dies for reasons causally related to the original claim, the Special Fund remains liable for the claim for death benefits” … . Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05369, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, , ,

THE CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH STATED THE AGREED FIREFIGHTER STAFFING LEVEL WAS 36 DID NOT BARGAIN AWAY THE MUNICIPALITY’S RIGHT TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY’S REFUSAL TO FILL A FIREFIGHTER VACANCY WAS NOT ARBITRABLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence which argued an additional ground for reversal, determined that the municipality had not bargained away (in the collective bargaining agreement [CBA]) its right to eliminate positions or lay off workers for economic reasons. Therefore the municipality’s refusal to fill a vacant firefighter position was not arbitrable (against public policy):

The clause [in the CBA] at issue requires petitioner to fill vacancies as soon as possible to maintain “agreed upon” staffing levels, which, at the effective date of the contract, was 36 firefighters. However, the operative clause does not contain the explicit term precluding downward readjustment of that agreed-upon minimum level that was present in Matter of Burke v Bowen [40 NY2d 264]. Rather, the clause at issue authorizes petitioner to unilaterally eliminate equipment or close a station on 30 days’ notice and requires that the parties bargain the impact of any such change. We conclude that this clause, considered in its entirety, does not meet the “stringent test” necessary to establish that petitioner “bargain[ed] away its right to eliminate positions or terminate or lay off workers for budgetary, economic or other reasons” … . Accordingly, the dispute is not arbitrable for reasons of public policy. Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen’s Assn.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05367, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS THE FIRST COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE CERTAIN INTENTIONAL TORTS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT, DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT REQUIRED, CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO COMPLAINTS WAS ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that dismissal of a second complaint arising out of the same facts as the first complaint, filed two months earlier, was not required. Plaintiff had hired new counsel 13 days before the statute of limitations ran out. The first complaint mentioned both intentional and negligent conduct. The second complaint fleshed out specific intentional torts:

CPLR 3211 (a) (4) does not require a trial court to dismiss an action upon the ground that another similar action is pending, instead allowing it to “make such order as justice requires” … . … “[t]he purpose of the defense of the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause is to prevent a party from being harassed or burdened by having to defend a multiplicity of suits” . In our view, the reasons stated by plaintiff for commencing this action rather than moving for leave to amend the first complaint are not…  so clearly inadequate that dismissal was required to serve that purpose … . …

We note that Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff that there was insufficient time to pursue a motion for leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 2214 (b). As the court observed, it was possible that plaintiff could have obtained timely relief by bringing a request for leave to amend the first complaint via an order to show cause … . Nevertheless, even if counsel erred in failing to pursue that course, dismissal of this action is too harsh a consequence.

Where, as here, relief is required under CPLR 3211 (a) (4) to correct similar pending actions, “consolidation or joint trial is permissible and in many instances preferable to dismissal”… . In his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff requested such relief as an alternative remedy. Thus, the requirement for notice to defendant before consolidation is ordered has been satisfied (see CPLR 602 [a] … ). Accordingly, we direct Supreme Court to consolidate this action with the first action, and remit for that purpose. LaBuda v LaBuda, 2019 NY Slip Op 05366, Third Dept 7-3-19

[​Note that it may have been possible for the plaintiff to file a copy of the proposed supplemental summons with a motion to amend the complaint which would have tolled the statute of limitations. (see Karagiannis v North Shore Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 80 AD3d 569, 569 [2d Dept 2011])]

 

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