You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

THE PARKER WARNINGS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY WARN DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED IF HE WERE ARRESTED BETWEEN THE PLEA AND SENTENCING, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE ENHANCED SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND, MATTER REMITTED FOR SENTENCING TO THE AGREED TERM OR FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the Parker warnings [notifying defendant of the enhanced sentencing consequences of misconduct between the plea and the sentencing] were inadequate and defendant’s counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue. Defendant’s sentence was five years longer than the sentence promised at the time of the plea because he was rearrested. The Parker warnings did not clearly inform defendant his sentence would be enhanced if he was rearrested. The failure to preserve the error was excused because of the ineffective assistance. The Parker warnings, in relevant part, were as follows: ” COURT: Don’t get in any trouble at the jail, don’t get rearrested, don’t get involved with contraband, or break the law, or anything like that in jail, you can do that? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir COURT: Thirdly, the [P]robation [D]epartment is going to be in to see you. They are going to do a presentence report. I ask you to be cooperative with them and honest with them and continue to express the remorse that you show here today because if you don’t cooperate with them, and if you are not honest with them, or if you don’t continue to accept remorse and responsibility for what you did then your plea will stand and I will be free to impose a sentence of 25 years to life and say things to make sure that you never see parole, so, please, cooperate with your probation officer:”

… [C]ounsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the enhanced sentence on the ground that County Court did not insure that defendant was fully aware of the consequences of being rearrested prior to sentencing. A successful challenge to the enhanced sentence would have resulted in County Court having to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or provide defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . … People v Hunter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04496, Third Dept 6-6-19

​

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1), A MUNICIPALITY’S MAINTENANCE OF LIGHT POLES IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, THE MUNICIPALITY’S ‘LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE’ DEFENSE COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance when he was injured, which is not actionable pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1). The Third Department further determined that a municipality’s maintenance of light poles is a proprietary function subject to ordinary standards of negligence which is not protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. The court further held that the “lack of written notice” defense was not a question of law which the municipality could raise for the first time on appeal. The plaintiff was repairing burned out lights which were on strands of decorative lights attached to a light pole. The strands of decorative lights were not fixtures within the meaning of the Labor Law:

… Merchants [a non-profit which had wrapped decorative lights around city light poles] hired plaintiff, as an independent contractor, to replace light strands located on 36 light poles because many of the light bulbs had become inoperable. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a 16-foot aluminum-rung extension ladder when the pole that it was leaning on suddenly fell over. …

… [R]replacement of the light strands, which was necessary because numerous bulbs had burned out, constituted routine maintenance that is outside the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . …

… [A]lthough replacement of a light fixture on a lighting pole is a repair within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … , under the facts herein, the light strands cannot be considered a fixture. …

Although a municipality may enjoy qualified immunity from liability arising from highway planning and design decisions … , that doctrine does not shield a municipality from liability arising from negligent maintenance. Gutkaiss v Delaware Ave. Merchants Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04527, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate compliance with the service of process requirements of the Limited Liability Company Law:

“The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” … . Proof of service, often in the form of an affidavit of service (see CPLR 306 [d]), must include “the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time [and] address [of such service], . . . and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner” … . Additionally, “[b]ecause service of process is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants, courts require strict compliance with the statutory methods of service” … . As relevant here, “[s]ervice of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company . . . shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, . . . duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee” … . …

Although plaintiffs proffered an unsigned receipt of service purportedly generated by the Office of the Secretary of State, that receipt did not set forth the papers served, whether duplicate copies of those papers were delivered to the Secretary of State, the time of service or facts showing that service was made by an authorized person (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303 [a]; CPLR 306 [a], [d]). Cedar Run Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04528, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) BY RELYING ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE HEARING EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPEND THE PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator in this employment dispute covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) , exceeded his authority by relying on the information in the notice of suspension, as opposed to the hearing evidence, to determine whether the employee, who was suspended without pay, was entitled to back pay:

Respondents’ sole contention on appeal is that the arbitrator’s award of back pay for the period of interim suspension exceeded his authority. We agree. “Judicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited. Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1), a court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power” … . Moreover, “although an arbitrator’s interpretation of contract language is generally beyond the scope of judicial review, where a benefit not recognized under the governing CBA is granted, the arbitrator will be deemed to have exceeded his or her authority”… . Therefore, “if the arbitrator imposes requirements not supported by any reasonable construction of the CBA, then the arbitrator’s construction[,] in effect, made a new contract for the parties, which is a basis for vacating the award” … . …

Here, the arbitrator’s award of back pay for the period of interim suspension was based upon a determination that DOCCS lacked probable cause to suspend petitioner. As relevant here, section 33.4 (c) (1) of the CBA states that “[s]uspensions without pay . . . shall be reviewable by a disciplinary arbitrator . . . to determine whether the [respondent] had probable cause.” This Court has previously held that hearing evidence should be considered by the arbitrator in determining probable cause (see Matter of Livermore-Johnson … . However, the decision makes clear that the arbitrator did not rely on the hearing evidence to reach this determination … . Matter of Czerwinski (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2019 NY Slip Op 04526, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

,

THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff contractor’s breach of contract cause of action against defendants-homeowners was properly dismissed because the contract to build the home did not comply with General Business Law 771. The defendants-homeowners refused to make the final payment of approximate $39,000 upon completion of the home, alleging the home was not complete and was not up to code. The homeowners’ counterclaim for breach of contract should not have been dismissed because General Business Law 771 applies only to contractors. The contractor’s quantum meruit cause of action was not precluded by the contractor’s failure to comply with the General Business Law. The agreed price of the work in the “contract” was evidence of the value of the work done by the contractor, even though the contract itself was invalid. The matter was sent back for determination of the homeowners’ breach of contract cause of action, and a determination of whether the contractor committed a substantial breach of the contract, which would preclude the quantum meruit cause of action:

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit are (1) performance of services in good faith, (2) acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) reasonable value of the services rendered” … . Defendants’ argument centers around plaintiff’s failure to establish the fourth element. In its decision, the court stated that, “[a]lthough there was no direct evidence presented regarding the reasonable value of the work performed, the parties’ agreement can furnish evidence of such value.” We discern no error in the court so holding, as “an unenforceable writing may provide evidence of the value of services rendered in quantum meruit” … . …

… [O]on remittal, should the court find that plaintiff breached the contract, it must then also decide if the breach was substantial, and, if so, plaintiff is precluded from recovering in quantum meruit … . Conversely, if the court finds that plaintiff’s breach of contract was not substantial, plaintiff is not precluded from quantum meruit recovery, and the damages due to defendants for plaintiff’s breach of the contract must be offset by plaintiff’s award … . Grey’s Woodworks, Inc. v Witte, 2019 NY Slip Op 04525, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

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

 

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