You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

PETITIONER WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT WHETHER HE COULD REQUEST WITNESSES, AND, IF THEY REFUSED TO TESTIFY, WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A REFUSAL FORM OR EXPLANATION, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because he was misinformed about whether he could request the presence of two witnesses who had refused to testify, and, if they again refused, whether petitioner was entitled to a refusal form or explanation:

The record reflects that, prior to the disciplinary hearing, petitioner asked his employee assistant to secure the testimony of three inmate witnesses — Franklin, Figueroa and Forrest. The assistance form indicates that although Forrest agreed to testify, the remaining two inmates refused. At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer advised petitioner that, because Franklin and Figueroa had been requested as witnesses prior to the start of the hearing, neither a witness refusal form nor an explanation for their refusal to testify was required. Specifically, the Hearing Officer explained that “when it comes to assistance . . . they only ask you yes or no, there are no witness forms required.” The Hearing Officer further explained, “If you ask for [an] additional witness that is not on this list and that person says no[,] I don’t want to testify[,] then a form would have to be done in that instance” (emphasis added). In response, petitioner indicated that he wished to call additional witnesses, but did not again request Franklin or Figueroa.

Respondent concedes that the Hearing Officer’s explanation incorrectly suggested that petitioner could request additional witnesses but not the two who had already refused. This error was significant as petitioner could still have requested Franklin and Figueroa and, if they again refused, a refusal form or explanation would have been required … . Matter of Getfield v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 04523, Thrid Dept 6-6-19

 

,

PLAINTIFFS BREACHED THE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE HOME BUILT BY DEFENDANTS BY CLEARLY INDICATING THEY COULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE PURCHASE (ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION); HOWEVER, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL AMOUNT PLAINTIFFS HAD ALREADY PAID DEFENDANTS, OVER $220,000, AS DAMAGES FOR THE BREACH, DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs breached the contract to purchase the home built by defendants by a clear expression that they did not intend to go through with the purchase (anticipatory repudiation). The plaintiffs had paid defendants about $220,000 toward the purchase price of about $322,000. After the plaintiffs repudiated the contract the builder sold the property to his daughter fore $269,000. Supreme Court allowed the defendants to keep the entire $220,000 paid by plaintiffs as damages. The Third Department determined the damages were excessive in ordered a trial to determine the appropriate amount of damages:

Having determined that plaintiffs breached the contract, the issue distills to whether Supreme Court correctly determined that, as a result thereof, they forfeited, as a matter of law, the $222,241 in payments made to defendants prior to their cancellation of the contract. Defendants argue that we must apply the well-settled rule set forth by the Court of Appeals over a century ago in Lawrence v Miller (86 NY 131 [1881]), which was later reaffirmed in Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo (68 NY2d 373 [1986]), “that a vendee who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse[ ] cannot recover his or her down payment” … . However, we find that forfeiture of the payments made by plaintiffs in this case, which constitute approximately 69% of the total contract amount, represents, on its face, a damages award disproportionally higher than the actual damages incurred by defendants … , such that defendants have failed to establish, as a matter of law, their entitlement to a damages award equivalent to all payments made by plaintiffs  … . Accordingly, Supreme Court should have denied this portion of defendants’ motion. As a result, a trial is required to determine the appropriate amount of defendants’ damages. Burns v Reiser Bros., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04522, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS PROPERLY ENFORCED A TOWN RESOLUTION WHICH PROHIBITED CONNECTING A WATER MAIN SERVICING AN AGRICULTURAL AREA TO A NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; THE DEVELOPERS WERE ‘INTERESTED PERSONS’ AND WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE COMMISSIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION TO ENFORCE THE TOWN RESOLUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, had the authority to enforce a 2004 Town Board resolution which restricted the use of water provided by a water main to existing residential uses and agricultural uses. In 2016 the Town Board passed a resolution allowing a connection with the water main to service a new residential subdivision. The Commissioner brought an Article 78 proceeding to enforce the 2004 resolution and the developers of the residential subdivision were properly allowed to intervene:

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the developers to intervene. Petitioner may well be correct that the developers do not have standing to bring suit to challenge his determination, but “[t]he bases for permissive intervention are broader than they are for standing to originate the proceeding” … . The developers have property interests that will be impacted should petitioner succeed … and all share the view of the Town and respondent Town Supervisor that petitioner lacks authority to enforce restrictions on water main access that the Town Board later attempts to vitiate. In our view, this is sufficient to render them “interested persons” who can at least intervene with regard to that portion of the petition/complaint founded upon CPLR article 78 … . …

A local government enjoys broad autonomy under “the ‘home rule’ provision of the New York Constitution,” but that autonomy does not extend to actions “that conflict with the State Constitution or any general law” (…see NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c] [ii]; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [1]). Among the general laws of New York is Agriculture and Markets Law article 25-AA, which “was enacted upon a finding that many of the agricultural lands in New York state are in jeopardy of being lost for any agricultural purposes due to local land use regulations inhibiting farming, as well as various other deleterious side effects resulting from the extension of nonagricultural development into farm areas” … . …

Petitioner was … within his rights to order the Town to comply with the 2004 resolution following an investigation and, upon the Town’s failure to seek review of his determination and refusal to comply with it, commence the present enforcement litigation … . Matter of Ball v Town of Ballston, 2019 NY Slip Op 04519, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

,

THE CANDIDATE SIGNED THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS STATEMENT WHICH INDICATED EACH VOTER SIGNED THE DESIGNATING PETITION IN HIS PRESENCE, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE, DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PROPERLY INVALIDATED BASED UPON THE CANDIDATE’S PARTICIPATION IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the designating petition was properly invalidated because there was clear and convincing evidence the candidate (Subedi) participated in fraudulent activity:

Regarding the challenged signatures for which Subedi was the subscribing witness, it is undisputed that the voters did not subscribe their signatures in Subedi’s presence nor did they identify themselves to Subedi as the signatories. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Subedi signed the subscribing witness statement on each sheet containing the challenged signatures and attested that, “[e]ach of the individuals whose names are subscribed to this petition sheet . . ., subscribed the same in [his] presence . . . and identified himself or herself to be the individual who signed [the] sheet.” Subedi then filed the designating petition and did not notify the Board of any irregularity or otherwise correct his subscribing witness statement. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Supreme Court correctly determined that there was clear and convincing evidence of fraudulent conduct on the part of Subedi … .

We note that Subedi freely admits his error and contends that he was not trying to gain any unfair advantage. Fraud, however, does not require any proof of a “‘nefarious motive'” … . Matter of Burman v Subedi, 2019 NY Slip Op 04315, Third Dept 5-31-19

 

PERSONS WHO SIGNED A DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH WAS DEEMED NULL AND VOID COULD VALIDLY SIGN A SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITY TO BALLOT PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Board of Elections, determined that the persons who signed a designating petition which was deemed null and void could validly sign a subsequent opportunity to ballot petition:

In general, when a qualified voter signs a designating petition and, on a subsequent date, signs an opportunity to ballot petition, the voter’s signature on the later opportunity to ballot petition is invalid (see Election Law § 6-134 [3]…). However, where, as here, a qualified voter signs a designating petition that is subsequently invalidated or deemed “null and void” by operation of law (Election Law § 6-146 [1]), the voter is permitted to sign an opportunity to ballot petition subsequent to the invalidation of the designating petition … . “A contrary holding would deprive persons who signed a designating petition later held invalid from exercising the separate right given to them by the Election Law to request the opportunity to write in the name of a candidate of their choice” … . Matter of Stack v Harrington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04314, Third Dept 5-31-19

 

,

ONE FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE DID NOT CONSTITUTE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PERMEATED BY FRAUD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that Supreme Court properly declined to invalidate the entire designating petition after finding one signature should be invalidated:

Petitioner presented a witness who testified unequivocally that the signature on the petition attributed to her was not her own, noting that her name appears the way it does when her husband signs it. The witness’s husband also testified confirming that he had signed both his own name and that of his wife, which they both agreed was a common practice for them throughout their 40-year marriage. The subscribing witness who gathered the foregoing signatures, however, testified, with notable detail, that he recalled both the husband and the wife signing for themselves. William Nicholas, who had accompanied the subscribing witness but did not formally witness any signatures, gave similar, strikingly-specific testimony. Supreme Court credited the testimony of the husband and the wife and, while reticent to find that the subscribing witness and Nicholas had perjured themselves, rejected their version of events and thereby invalidated the subject signature. We perceive no reason not to give deference to those findings … . However, one fraudulent signature is not clear and convincing evidence that a designating petition is permeated with fraud … . Further, there was no evidence that [the candidate] herself participated in the procurement or submission of any fraudulent signature … . Matter of Overbaugh v Benoit, 2019 NY Slip Op 04261, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A CONSULTING COMPANY FOR AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a consulting company for afterschool programs (LaRue) and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Claimant was hired by LaRue to perform site observations, work on grant applications and conduct training workshops. For site observations, LaRue provided guidance and direction to claimant on what to look for and provided forms for claimant to use, some of which were developed by LaRue. Claimant would submit a report to LaRue following the site observation, which, at LaRue’s direction, had to contain resource references. LaRue would then make changes and edits to the report and submit a final report to the client. For training workshops, claimant was provided with all materials needed, including a power point presentation, props, workshop sign-in sheets and evaluations that were returned to LaRue afterward. For grant applications, LaRue provided claimant with prior applications for reference and set deadlines for the grants to be submitted to her for review. LaRue would then compile the final grant project application for the client by a specified deadline.

Claimant was paid for travel time in connection with site visits. LaRue billed the clients and intervened with any difficulty regarding site visits, and any complaints about claimant from a client would be directed to LaRue. In addition, LaRue routinely communicated with claimant regarding the status of the work. Matter of Loewecke (Larue–Commissioner of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 04255, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

,

CLAIMANT’S CONVICTION FOR THE UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINES DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT CLAIMANT PERFORMED WORK OR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS REGARDING WORK SUCH THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS UPON RELEASE FROM PRISON (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that claimant’s conviction for the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine did not constitute work within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law 114-a. Therefore, claimant did not perform any work or make any false statements regarding work which would disqualify him from receiving benefits upon release from prison:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f for the purpose of obtaining compensation . . ., or for the purpose of influencing any determination regarding any such payment, a claimant knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact, such person shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation.” “In making such a determination, the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its determination as to whether a claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … .

To be guilty of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree, a person must possess, at the same time and location, “[t]wo or more items of laboratory equipment and two or more precursors, chemical reagents or solvents in any combination,” with the intent to use such products to unlawfully manufacture, prepare, or produce methamphetamine, or knowing that another intends to do so (Penal Law § 220.73 [1]). The elements of the crime do not require that any work be performed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the conviction alone is insufficient to establish any work activity by claimant or that he received any type of remuneration … . Matter of Stone v Saulsbury/Federal Signal, 2019 NY Slip Op 04250, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS REHIRED AFTER THE STRIKE, THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT ASSURED CLAIMANT OF THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK DURING THE STRIKE, THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SEVEN-WEEK SUSPENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING A STRIKE PERMITTED BY LABOR LAW 592 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and were not subject to the seven-week suspension of benefits during a strike (Labor Law 592). The suspension of benefits is not applicable where, as here, the employer indicates it is hiring permanent replacements for the strikers:

Although it is unclear which of claimants’ positions were filled by the permanent replacement workers, the record unequivocally demonstrates that none of the claimants were notified in a certified writing that they would be able to return to their prior positions upon the conclusion of the strike. Moreover, although claimants ultimately were allowed to return to their prior positions following ratification of the parties’ … Memorandum of Agreement ending the strike, that agreement is of no consequence because the employer failed to provide any written certification during either the seven-week suspension period or at any time prior to the conclusion of the strike assuring claimants that they would retain the right to return to their prior positions upon conclusion of the strike … . Matter of D’Altorio (Clare Rose, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 04249, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

NEWSPAPER DELIVERY CARRIERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, a newspaper delivery carrier, was an employee of the The Hearst Corporation and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [T]he record demonstrates that Hearst established the delivery routes, determined the rate of pay for each route, provided carriers with customer lists containing the suggested order of delivery, handled customer complaints, imposed monetary penalties for unsatisfactory deliveries, prohibited carriers from inserting their own flyers into the newspapers without prior approval and required carriers to maintain a valid driver’s license and their own liability insurance. Notably, when new carriers were retained, Hearst arranged to have someone accompany them to show them their routes. In addition, Hearst imposed performance guidelines, set forth in written contracts like the ones it entered into with claimant, requiring carriers not to miss more than two deliveries per thousand. It also provided carriers, including claimant, with an orientation checklist setting forth additional information, such as delivery time deadlines, as well as the requirement that they provide a trained substitute if unable to cover a shift.

In view of the foregoing, the Board’s finding that Hearst exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant and similarly situated carriers so as to establish the existence of an employment relationship is supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with other newspaper delivery cases involving analogous facts … . Matter of Hennessy (Hearst Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 04245, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

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