You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

FAMILY COURT, IN THE WIFE’S ABSENCE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION BEFORE THE COURT, FAMILY COURT THEN ALLOWED THE ALLEGATIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE PETITION, AND THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE WIFE HAD COMMITTED THE FAMILY OFFENSES OF HARASSMENT AND MENACING, BECAUSE THE WIFE WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF THE ADDED ALLEGATIONS, REVERSAL WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the wife was not given notice of the allegations which led to the court’s finding she had committed the family offenses of harassment and menacing .  The wife did not appear in court and her attorney told the court she was not authorized to represent her in the proceeding. Certain allegations were added to the family offense petition in the wife’s absence and without prior notice to her:

The court … , sua sponte, addressed a new subject, inquiring about allegations that had apparently been raised on some other occasion. When the court asked whether the alleged events had occurred, the husband responded, “Yes, ma’am,” without specifically describing those factual allegations. Upon this basis, the court then granted a request by the husband’s counsel to amend the petition to add certain offenses; notably, counsel made no request to amend the petition’s substantive allegations. The court then found the wife had committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and menacing in the third degree, and directed the entry of a two-year order of protection.

Nothing in the record indicates that the wife was given any notice that the matters raised by Family Court would be addressed at the hearing. The allegations described by the court were not set forth within the husband’s July 2016 petition. …

“[N]otice is a fundamental component of due process” … . In the absence of notice to the wife, Family Court’s sua sponte consideration of extraneous allegations violated the wife’s due process rights … . Matter of King v King, 2018 NY Slip Op 08724, Third Dept 12-20-18

 

,

FAILURE TO HOLD A LINCOLN HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that Family Court’s custody and parenting time rulings were supported by the evidence. The dissenting justices argued a Lincoln hearing should have been held to learn the preferences of the older child. The majority ruled Family Court did not abuse its discretion in not holding a Lincoln hearing:

We … do not share Family Court’s view that “[c]ourts are rarely only supposed to have Lincoln [h]earings.” To the contrary, conducting such hearings is the “preferred practice” … . That said, whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing rests in the discretion of Family Court … . Family Court noted that the testimony from the fact-finding hearing was “not remarkable nor extremely disturbing” and did not raise “any red flags.” In our view, the record was sufficiently developed for the court to make a custody and visitation determination. Furthermore, although the wishes of the older child, who was nearly 11 years old at the time of the hearing, were “entitled to consideration” … , this is just one factor in the best interests analysis and is not dispositive … . As such, under the [*3]circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of discretion … . Matter of Lorimer v Lorimer, 2018 NY Slip Op 08721, Third Dept 12-20-18

 

, ,

UNLIKE IN FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 10 AND 6 PROCEEDINGS, CHILDREN’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 8 (FAMILY OFFENSE) PROCEEDINGS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this family offense proceeding, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined the hearsay statements of the children should not have been admitted in evidence. Family Court had found that father committed harassment by grabbing one of the children. Although children’s hearsay has been deemed admissible in Family Court Act article 10 and 6 proceedings, such hearsay is not admissible in Family Court Act article 8 (family offense) proceedings:

Despite the extension of the exception from Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10-A to article 6, this Court has never directly addressed whether Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi) can be applied in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 8 … . The 1st and 2nd Departments have concluded that even though the exception has been applied in custody proceedings under article 6 that are founded on abuse or neglect, because Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi) “is explicitly limited to child protective proceedings under articles 10 and 10-A, [it] has no application to family offense proceedings under article 8” … . This conclusion comports with the language of the statute. …

Having determined that Family Court should not have relied upon the children’s hearsay statements, we must consider whether the remaining evidence at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish that the father committed a family offense. Setting aside the children’s statements to the detectives, to the mother and on the videotape, the evidence directly related to the incident is extremely limited. It includes a photograph showing a barely visible bruise on the middle child’s arm, the detectives’ evaluation of the children’s body language and the father’s testimony that he grabbed the middle child while removing him from a situation where he was misbehaving. The father testified that his intention in taking hold of the child was not to alarm him, but to get him and the situation under control. This testimony contradicts the intent required to prove harassment in the second degree and supports the father’s defense of justification, which permits a parent to use physical force to the extent that he or she deems reasonably necessary to maintain discipline … . Although the court could have disbelieved the father’s testimony and inferred his state of mind from the circumstances … , without the hearsay testimony, there was not a sufficient basis for the court to find that the father committed a family offense. Matter of Kristie GG. v Sean GG., 2018 NY Slip Op 08718, Third Dept 12-20-18

 

, ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER (LCSW) CONSTITUTED COMPETENT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF SUFFERS FROM POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD), PTSD IS A ‘SERIOUS INJURY’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an affidavit from a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) was competent evidence that plaintiff in this traffic accident case suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which is recognized as a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d):

Under Education Law § 7701 (2), an LCSW can diagnose “mental, emotional, behavioral, addictive and developmental disorders and disabilities” and can administer and interpret tests of psychological functioning, create assessment-based treatment plans and provide “short-term and long-term psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic treatment.” These are functions comparable to those of a psychologist (see Education Law § 7601-a [1], [2]). For licensing purposes, an LCSW must “have at least three years full-time supervised postgraduate clinical social work experience in diagnosis, psychotherapy, and assessment-based treatment plans, or its part-time equivalent, obtained over a continuous period not to exceed six years, under the supervision . . . of a psychiatrist, a licensed psychologist, or [an LCSW] in a facility setting” … . Given the above, we conclude that an LCSW is competent to render an opinion as to whether a person has PTSD for purposes of establishing a serious injury under the Insurance Law. …

Iantorno [the LCSW] averred that she “personally witnessed physical anxiety exhibited by . . . Vergine [plaintiff]. This was visible to me and further validated diagnosis of PTSD.” Such clinical observations qualify as objective medical evidence for purposes of establishing a serious injury … . Iantorno opined that Vergine was significantly limited in her ability to drive and even distressed as a passenger, conditions that impacted her independence and imposed a significant limitation of her psychological function. We find that this submission presents an issue of fact as to whether Vergine sustained causally-related PTSD, constituting a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Vergine v Phillips, 2018 NY Slip Op 08740, Third Dept 12-20-18

 

, ,

COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES RELATED BACK TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE TRUST AND THEREFORE WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaims against the trustees of the plaintiff workers’ compensation self-insurance trust should not have been dismissed as time-barred because they related back to the counterclaims against the trust:

Supreme Court determined that, because defendant was aware of the identity of the trustees when it interposed its original answer and counterclaims in September 2010, its failure to assert claims against the individual trustees between September 2010 and December 2016 represented “either a strategic litigation decision on its part or a mistake of law,” neither of which it found would entitle defendant to application of the doctrine. We disagree.

There is nothing in the record before us demonstrating that defendant intentionally elected not to assert its counterclaims against the individual trustees and/or that it did so to obtain “a tactical advantage in the litigation” … . A review of defendant’s pleadings demonstrates that it intended to sue the individual trustees … . Although the specific names of the individual trustees could have been ascertained from certain documentation that the trust provided to defendant on an annual basis, “we need no longer consider whether [such a] mistake was excusable” … . Rather, as the Court of Appeals has recognized, the primary question — and “the linchpin of the relation back doctrine” — is whether the newly added party had actual notice of the claim … . As trustees of the trust, we find it implausible that the individual trustees were not aware of the trust’s commencement of this action and the counterclaims that defendant asserted against the trust — such knowledge being imputed to them as trustees … . NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust v People Care Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08735 [167 AD3d 1305], Third Dept 12-20-18

 

,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DISQUALIFYING CLAIMANT FROM FUTURE WAGE REPLACEMENT BENEFITS, MATTER REMITTED SO THAT ASPECT OF THE PENALTY CAN BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board must provide some explanation of the discretionary sanction against claimant disqualifying him from future benefits. The Board had found that claimant misrepresented his physical condition, based upon video surveillance evidence. The Third Department held there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding on the misrepresentation claim before it, but an explanation for prohibiting future claims was required before that aspect of the penalty could be reviewed on appeal:

Claimant also challenges the Board’s imposition of the discretionary sanction disqualifying him from receiving future wage replacement benefits. By not providing any reason for its imposition of this discretionary penalty, the Board failed to satisfy its obligation to “provide some basis for appellate review” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted so that the Board can fulfill its obligation and “provide some explanation for its determination in this regard” … . Matter of Papadakis v Fresh Meadow Power NE LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08728, Third Dept 12-29-18

 

PETITIONER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE UNAUTHORIZED MEDICATION WAS FOUND IN HIS CELL, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that the determination petitioner was guilty of possessing unauthorized medication must be annulled because petitioner may not have been afforded his right to be present when the pill was discovered:

… [T]he part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing unauthorized medication must be annulled as the record reflects that petitioner may not have been afforded his conditional right to observe that portion of the cell search that resulted in the pill being discovered. As such, the determination must be annulled to that extent and all references to the charge of possessing unauthorized medication must be expunged from his institutional record … . Matter of Torres v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 08595, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER WHO KILLED A BICYCLIST WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYER’S PREMISES IS LIABLE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT (1) THE EMPLOYER’S SPECIAL USE OF THE AREA WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, (2) A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EMPLOYEE (MASTER-SERVANT) GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO CONTROL THE EMPLOYEE, AND (3) PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined there were questions of fact whether the employer (BorgWarner) of the driver who killed a bicyclist (plaintiff’s decedent) while exiting the employer’s premises was liable. There was a question whether the employer exercised a special use of the area, whether the employer had a duty to control the conduct of the employee because of a special relationship (master-servant), and whether the employer’s acts or omissions constituted a proximate cause of the accident:

A finding of a special use arises where there is a modification to the public sidewalk, such as the installation of a driveway, or a variance of the sidewalk to allow for ingress and egress… , that was “constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner or occupier” … . The owner must derive a “unique benefit unrelated to the public use” … . Contrary to BorgWarner’s claims that it uses Warren Road in the same manner as the general public, there was substantial evidence in the record, submitted by plaintiff, suggesting that the public roadway in question had been altered for the exclusive benefit of BorgWarner to facilitate its relocation. …

… [A] duty may be created to control the conduct of a person when a special relationship exists, such as master-servant … . Here, not only did BorgWarner control the flow of traffic from its private parking lot at the south exit via a control gate, but BorgWarner also placed a yield sign on BorgWarner South Drive for motorists entering the merge lane on Warren Road. Also, as an employer, BorgWarner had the opportunity to conduct training or communicate in some way to its employees to use due caution and follow traffic laws when using the south exit. In fact, BorgWarner did provide training programs, including obeying traffic signs, however, none were specific to the use of the south exit. This evidence raises a question of fact as to the extent of BorgWarner’s control over its employees and whether this control is sufficient to establish a duty… .Further, although it is true that, at the time of the accident, [the employee] had completed her shift and was going home, activity arguably outside the scope of her employment, exiting the facility was also “necessary or incidental to such employment,” and her actions were still controlled in part by the gate and signage installed by BorgWarner … . Giannelis v Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08593, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

CLAIMANT, WHO HAD BEEN INJURED, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK DURING THE TIME SHE WAS CERTIFIED FOR BENEFITS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD RULING SHE WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, determined claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she had been injured and did not demonstrate she was able to work during the relevant period of time:

The substantial and unrefuted medical documentation in the record, together with claimant’s receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, establishes that claimant was unable to perform any job duties required of her during the time period in which she certified for benefits … . In addition, inasmuch as the essential job functions required of her included the performance of various physical tasks, including the manual operation of a school bus door three times in a certain amount of time, we are unpersuaded by claimant’s contention that, at the time she applied for benefits and during the time period in question, no accommodation was made for her injury… . Moreover, although claimant testified that she previously worked as a waitress and that she was capable of performing such work while she recovered from her injury, claimant’s testimony does not reflect that she sought, or was available for, this type of employment at any point during the time period in which she certified for benefits … . In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was ready, willing and able to work in her employment as a school bus driver or in any other type of employment for which she is reasonably fitted by training and experience during the time period in which she certified for benefits … . Matter of Ormanian (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 08592, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

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