You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , , ,

IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial, determined that videotaped deposition testimony from proceedings in other states was not admissible in the New York action. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent died from exposure to asbestos in a joint compound made by Georgia-Pacific. An employee of Georgia-Pacific, Charles Lehnert, who was familiar with the formula for the joint compound, gave the videotaped deposition testimony:

CPLR 3117 (a) (3) provides, in relevant part, that “any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used . . . by any party for any purpose against any other party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had the notice required under these rules.” Here, defendant was permitted to introduce deposition testimony given by Lehnert in the 2007 Texas state court action for the purpose of demonstrating that it contradicted the 2001 and 2003 testimony that plaintiff had been permitted to introduce as part of its case-in-chief. However, although defendant was a party to the 2007 Texas action, plaintiff was not, and he had no opportunity to be present and cross-examine Lehnert. Thus, this testimony was not admissible under CPLR 3117 (a) (3) … . …

Although defendant did not cross-appeal, our holding reversing Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Lehnert’s 2007 testimony necessarily brings up for review Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to preclude Lehnert’s 2001 and 2003 testimony (seeCPLR 5501 [a] [1] …). Upon review, we find that none of Lehnert’s deposition testimony should have been admitted into evidence at this trial. Although a live witness may be impeached with prior inconsistent testimony, Lehnert never testified for any party in this action, either at the trial itself or at any pretrial deposition. He was merely a witness who had testified years ago in multiple other states on the subject of the content of Georgia-Pacific joint compound. Rather than calling him (or any other witness) to testify on this topic, both parties resorted to retrieving video of Lehnert’s testimony in those earlier actions and selectively playing those portions they believed supported their respective contentions. The jury was essentially asked to determine whether Lehnert, an empty chair in New York, testified more credibly in Illinois or Texas. In this scenario, CPLR 3117 (a) (2) did not permit plaintiff to introduce the 2001 and 2003 depositions on his case-in-chief, and CPLR 3117 (c) did not permit defendant to impeach those depositions with another deposition. Billok v Union Carbide Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02185, Third Dept 3-21-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED 20 POINTS FOR A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, PROOF OF A SECOND INSTANCE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WAS INSUFFICIENT, AN ALLEGATION IN AN INDICTMENT IS NOT, BY ITSELF, EVIDENCE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant should not have been assessed 20 points for a continuing course of sexual misconduct, noting that a reference in an indictment is not sufficient proof:

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of having sexual intercourse with the victim and claimed that he only had sex with the victim once. The People presented a sworn statement given to the police by the victim’s mother in which she recounts that, when she confronted the victim concerning her relationship with defendant, the victim told her that they “had sex two times.” Even assuming that this statement constitutes reliable hearsay … there is no indication by the victim as to when the acts of sexual contact occurred. Although the case summary states that the presentence investigation report reflects that acts of sexual contact occurred in May 2013 and September 2013, the only reference to a September 2013 act in that report is when it lists the charges contained in the indictment. Notably, “the fact that an offender was arrested or indicted for an offense is not, by itself, evidence that the offense occurred” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]). Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record regarding when the second act of sexual contact occurred, we cannot say that there is clear and convincing evidence that two sexual acts occurred that were separated by at least 24 hours … . People v Hinson, 2019 NY Slip Op 02184, Third Dept 3-21-18

 

, ,

THERE IS NO APPEAL FROM A DEFAULT STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO APPEAR, MUST MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal, explained that where a party in default for failing to appear wishes to appeal, the party must first move to vacate the default:

Respondent appeared by telephone before the Support Magistrate for arraignment, an appearance and a hearing, following which the Support Magistrate concluded that respondent had willfully violated the support order and recommended that he be incarcerated. The matter was referred to Family Court for confirmation. Respondent requested permission to give electronic testimony. Family Court denied that application both in writing and orally and directed, on the record, that respondent must appear in person for the hearing. When respondent did not appear, the court conducted the hearing in his absence, found that he willfully violated the support order and committed him to jail for 180 days. Respondent appeals.

Family Court properly found respondent in default … . Although respondent’s counsel appeared and offered the explanation that respondent could not afford to travel to New York, the court had already heard and rejected that excuse in connection with respondent’s application to give electronic testimony and directed him to appear in person for the hearing. When respondent failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in default  … . “[T]he proper procedure would be for [respondent] to move to vacate the default and, if said motion is denied, take an appeal from that order” … . Because no appeal lies from an order entered on default, we must dismiss this appeal … . Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v Beke, 2019 NY Slip Op 01864, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE FACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, DEFENDANT HAD MADE ALL PRIOR APPEARANCES AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE AT THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined County Court did not consider the appropriate factors before ordering the trial in defendant’s absence. Defendant had made all prior appearances and no effort was made to secure his presence:

Defendant had been present at all prior appearances, and there was no explanation for his failure to appear at trial. Defendant’s counsel stated that he had been calling defendant for a week without success. That morning, counsel had contacted local jails and hospitals looking for defendant. Despite counsel’s request for an adjournment, County Court concluded that defendant had been warned of the consequences of failing to appear and had voluntarily decided to be absent. The court then issued a bench warrant and immediately began the trial.

County Court abused its discretion in conducting the trial in defendant’s absence, as the record does not reflect that the court considered the appropriate factors. Nothing in the record indicates any difficulty in rescheduling the trial, fear that evidence or witnesses would be lost or that further efforts to locate defendant would be futile … . “Moreover, the fact that trial was commenced immediately after issuance of a bench warrant demonstrates only a minimal effort to locate defendant prior to trial” … . The court did not provide even a short adjournment for execution of the warrant or a determination as to whether defendant could be located within a reasonable time … . Because the court violated defendant’s right to be present at his trial, we reverse. People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 01858, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

,

CONFLICTING PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS REQUIRED A COMPETENCY HEARING, EVEN IF ONE OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS HAD CHANGED HIS OR HER MIND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined a hearing was required to assess defendant’s competency to stand trial because conflicting reports from the two psychiatric evaluations. The fact that one of the psychiatrists apparently changed his or her opinion was deemed irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a reconstruction hearing:

… [T]here can be no dispute that, after receiving conflicting examination reports, County Court failed to conduct a competency hearing. Although the People rely on defense counsel’s representation that the psychiatric examiner who filed a report stating that defendant was not competent to stand trial had changed his mind, this representation and subsequent withdrawal of the request for a hearing did not relieve the court of its statutory duty to conduct a hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (4) for the purpose of determining defendant’s mental capacity to stand trial … . We agree with the dissent that, pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2), a competency hearing need not always be held “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that each psychiatric examiner is of the opinion that the defendant is not an incapacitated person” (emphasis added). However, we do not agree that CPL 730.30 (2) applies when the record demonstrates that the court has been provided with two conflicting examination reports, even if the defendant’s attorney represents that one of the examiners has since changed his or her opinion.

Given the circumstances present here, reconstruction of defendant’s mental capacity at the time of his violation hearing should be possible by means of “contemporaneous observation and records” … . People v Vandegrift, 2019 NY Slip Op 01854, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TYPE OF STICKS AND BALLS USED IN THE LACROSSE GAME AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOGGLES WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S EYE INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this lacrosse injury case. There were questions of fact about the type of sticks and balls used such that protective goggles were required:

… [W]e find that a triable issue of fact exists as to the nature of the lacrosse game played by the students and whether protective goggles should have been used by the students based upon the game they were playing. Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, a jury must determine whether defendants’ breach of their duty to provide protective goggles was a proximate cause of the infant’s eye injury … . Powers v Greenville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 01477, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT FALL ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE GAP IN THE ELEVATED PLATFORM WAS WIDE ENOUGH TO HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO FALL THROUGH, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff’s leg fell through a one foot wide, twelve feet long, gap in the elevated platform he was working on. The fact that plaintiff could have fallen all the way through the gap entitled him to summary judgment. Although there may have been boards to cover the gap nearby, there was no evidence plaintiff was directed to cover the gap with the boards:

The opening presented an elevation-related risk, rather than a usual and ordinary danger of working on a construction site, because it was of sufficient size that claimant could have fallen entirely through to a lower level; therefore, Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to this accident because it was caused by a failure of the suspended metal deck — which was functioning as a scaffold — to provide adequate protection, even though claimant did not fall entirely through the opening … . …

… [T]here is no evidence in the record that claimant received any instruction or directive that would establish that he knew that he was responsible for either covering any openings, or requesting that they be covered by coworkers, before beginning work (see id.). Accordingly, we conclude that the Court of Claims properly determined that claimant was not the sole proximate cause of the accident … . . Santos v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01479, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A VIDEOTAPE OF THE UNDERLYING INCIDENT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED, EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new hearing, determined petitioner’s request for a videotape of the underlying incident was improperly denied by the hearing officer:

Although petitioner apparently did not request his assistant to obtain the videotape, he made such request during the course of the hearing. The Hearing Officer denied the request and informed petitioner that because he did not ask his assistant to obtain it, it was unpreserved. Based upon this omission, the Hearing Officer considered the videotape to be “unavailable.” However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the videotape was, in fact, unavailable or that the Hearing Officer undertook any measures to ascertain if such videotape existed. In view of this, we conclude that petitioner’s request was improperly denied … . Matter of Davison v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 01474, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

, ,

WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH AROSE AFTER THE WAIVER, AT SENTENCING ALL WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, SENTENCING JUDGE HAD SINCE BECOME THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REPRESENT DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s waiver of appeal did not preclude consideration of an issue that came up after the waiver and the public defender’s office could not represent defendant because the sentencing judge had since become the public defender. At sentencing and at the time of the waiver of appeal, all were under the misconception defendant was a second felony offender:

… [D]efendant’s waiver of the right to appeal regarding his plea to the probation violation was entered under the misconception by all parties that defendant was a second felony drug offender. Accordingly, the waiver does not preclude our review of defendant’s appeal on resentencing because “the plea was entered pursuant to conditions that changed after defendant’s waiver” … . We agree with defendant’s argument on appeal that the Albany County Public Defender’s office was precluded, as a matter of law, from representing him at the resentencing hearing because the Public Defender, prior to being appointed to that position, was the County Judge who presided over and initially sentenced him in this matter (see Judiciary Law § 17 … ). Accordingly, the judgment resentencing defendant must be reversed and the matter remitted for resentencing, with different representation assigned to defendant. People v Sumter, 2019 NY Slip Op 01460, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

,

EMPLOYEE’S ESTATE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD THAT ACCRUED UP UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, NOT THE ENTIRE SLU AWARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the employee’s estate was entitled to the portion of the schedule loss of use (SLU) award that had accrued up until the time of the employee’s death:

In our view, the 2009 statutory amendments did not alter the longstanding rule that, where an injured employee dies without leaving a surviving spouse, child under 18 years old or dependent, only that portion of the employee’s SLU award that had accrued at the time of the death is payable to the estate, along with reasonable funeral expenses… . Nor did, as claimant contends, the amendments alter the rate at which an SLU award accrues to an injured employee who is posthumously awarded SLU benefits. Absent clear statutory language or an indication of statutory intent, we cannot conclude that, in granting the option of a lump-sum payment, the Legislature intended for the employee’s estate to collect any portion of the posthumous SLU award that had not accrued prior to death. Accordingly, claimant was not entitled to the entirety of decedent’s SLU award. Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v Berry Plastics Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01290, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

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