You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED HE WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER, A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHICH DEPRIVED HIM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating the sexually violent offender designation, determined the failure to notify defendant that he would be classified as a violent sexual offender deprived defendant of due process resulting in his inability to argue his constitutional objections to the designation on appeal. The matter was remitted:

Here, neither the Board nor the People requested that County Court designate defendant a sexually violent offender, and the designation was never mentioned at the hearing … . Although the court appropriately concluded that the foreign registration clause compelled it to designate defendant a sexually violent offender … , the court erred when it failed to provide defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard on his designation before issuing a determination (see Correction Law § 168-k [2] …). This error prejudiced defendant, as he could not timely assert, and thereby preserve, the constitutional defenses he presses on appeal … . Specifically, defendant contends that his designation as a sexually violent offender violates his rights to substantive due process and equal protection of the laws and runs afoul of the Privileges and Immunities Clause … . People v Schultz, 2025 NY Slip Op 00251, Third Department 1-16-25

Practice Point: Although the judge was required to designate defendant as a sexually violent offender, the failure to notify him and give him an opportunity to be heard deprived him of his right to challenge the designation on constitutional grounds. The sexually-violent-offender designation was vacated and the matter remitted.

 

,

THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE RULE RE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST SURFACE DEFECTS; HERE THE RULE APPLIED TO AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD OR BARRIER WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD WAS SWINGING FROM IT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming the dismissal of the complaint, over a two-justice dissent, determined the “written notice” requirement in the City of Ithaca code applied to an arch-shaped bollard or barrier placed to protect a tree from being damaged by cars using a parking lot. As plaintiff’s child grabbed onto the bollard and swung from it, it came loose from the ground and fell over, injuring the child’s hand. The city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition, which, under the code, is a prerequisite for liability. The dissenters argued a bollard was not in any category which triggers the written-notice requirement:

… [T]he operative query is not whether there is a surface defect affecting safe passage but, more broadly, whether there is a defective condition that would not have come to the municipality’s attention unless it was notified of it … . As such, the prior written notice rule has been applied to conditions as varied as a low-hanging tree branch …, a sharp metal beam … and a bent parking meter pole … . Therefore, the prior written notice rule governs.

From the Dissent:

First, in our opinion, the defective bollard that crushed plaintiff’s child’s hand was not in one of the six locations that General Municipal Law § 50-e authorizes municipalities to cover with a prior written notice law. And second, defendants failed to submit any proof that they installed the bollard properly, in accordance with industry standards. Thus, the burden never shifted to plaintiff, and defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been denied regardless of the adequacy of plaintiff’s proof. Finally, even if defendants had shifted the burden, we believe that plaintiff submitted proof presenting a question of fact as to whether the bollard was unreasonably dangerous when installed, precluding a grant of summary judgment. Gurbanova v City of Ithaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 00252, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: The written-notice rule, which requires that a municipality have written notice of a dangerous condition before it can be held liable for injury caused by the condition, applies to more than just surface defects. Here the rule applied to an arch-shaped bollard or barrier which fell over when a child swung on it.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON POWER LINES WHILE SUSPENDED FROM A HELICOPTER WHEN THE HELICOPTER LOST CONTROL AND CRASHED; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200, 240 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) did not preempt New York’s Labor Law protections for workers. Plaintiff was working on power lines and towers while suspended from a helicopter when the helicopter collided with a structure, lost control and crashed. Plaintiff sued the general contractor for failure to provide adequate safety devices. This lawsuit did not include the helicopter company or seek damages for negligent operation of the helicopter (apparently addressed by other lawsuits against different defendants):

Plaintiff’s complaint … asserted claims against defendant as the general contractor on the project alleging that defendant was negligent and violated Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 (6), as well as the Industrial Code (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.7). * * *

… [T]he FAA “contained a saving provision preserving pre-existing statutory and common-law remedies” …, and it continues to authorize “any other remedies provided by law” in addition to the ones created by the FAA … . In other words, the FAA contemplates that state law remedies survive its enactment and may be pursued within its purview, including “state law personal injury suits” … . The question is accordingly not whether the FAA preempts all state law claims that somehow intersect with air safety — its own terms make clear that it does not — but whether the claims arise in the area of air safety and “interfere with federal laws and regulations sufficiently to fall within the scope of the preempted field” … . …

Plaintiff’s claims … arise out of the state’s police power to regulate occupational health and safety issues, not aviation, and defendant points to “nothing in [the FAA or implementing regulations] indicating that Congress meant to affect state regulation of occupational health and safety, or the types of damages that may be recovered” for a violation of those workplace safety standard … . Scaletta v Michels Power, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00258, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of field and conflict preemption issues in the context of the Federal Aviation Act and New York’s Labor Law protections for workers. Plaintiff was suspended from a helicopter working on power lines when the helicopter lost control and crashed.

 

, ,

HERE AN ATTORNEY AND A CONTRACTOR WERE BUSINESS PARTNERS FOR YEARS AND RELIED ON EACH OTHER’S UNIQUE EXPERTISE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ATTORNEY BREACHED A FIDUCIARY DUTY BY TRANSFORMING THE PARTNERSHIP TO AN LLC WITHOUT INFORMING HIS FORMER PARTNER HE COULD NOT UNILATERALLY WITHDRAW FROM THE LLC; HERE THE CRITERIA FOR A STATUTORY DISSOLUTION OF THE LLC WERE MET (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant attorney, Mazza, breached his fiduciary duty owned to plaintiff when forming a Limited Liability Company (LLC), and further determined that the cause of action seeking a statutory dissolution of the LLC should have been granted. Defendant Mazza and plaintiff were partners in a successful business for many years. It was alleged that when the partnership was transformed to an LLC by Mazza, Mazza did not inform plaintiff he could not unilaterally withdraw from of dissolve the LLC:

There is no dispute that a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and Mazza before the LLC was formed. The record indeed reflects that plaintiff trusted Mazza, an attorney, to act on his behalf in executive matters related to the partners’ real estate business, and that Mazza resultingly acquired influence over plaintiff … . The close relationship between the two men, which spanned more than three decades and included Mazza’s prior representation of plaintiff, supports this conclusion. And although plaintiff was a skilled and seemingly successful contractor, he admittedly had no knowledge of the legal (and practical) implications of converting a partnership to an LLC and accordingly relied on Mazza’s expertise in that area. * * *

Limited Liability Company Law § 702 provides that “the supreme court . . . may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.” Although an alleged “deadlock” between the members of a limited liability company will not necessarily render it impracticable for the company to carry on its business … , upon careful review of the record we find that it does in the case at bar. Amici v Mazza, 2025 NY Slip Op 00259, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed discussion the criteria for a fiduciary duty owed by one party to another in a business relationship.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the criteria for a statutory dissolution of an LLC.

 

,

DETERMINING SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE BY COMPARING THE RANGE OF MOTION OF LIMBS ON THE INJURED SIDE TO THE RANGE OF MOTION OF CORRESPONDING LIMBS ON THE OTHER SIDE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IF THE OTHER SIDE HAS ALSO SUFFERED INJURIES, WHETHER PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY, IN THE PAST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined comparison of the ranges of motion of the injured limbs to the corresponding limbs on the other side of the body (contralateral members), which resulted in 0 % loss of schedule use (SLU), was a flawed approach. The Board concluded that such a comparison was not appropriate only if the injuries on the other side of the body are permanent, which was not demonstrated to be the case here. The Third Department disagreed and held that the comparison may also be inappropriate if the prior injuries on the other side of the body were temporary, The matter was remitted:

… [W]e agree that evidence of a permanent physical or functional impairment of the contralateral member due to traumatic injury or other condition that does not affect the subject member would render a comparison to the contralateral member when determining range of motion inappropriate. However, comparing contralateral members that have temporary physical or functional impairments, either due to work-related or nonwork-related injuries, would also be inappropriate as such comparisons could equally result in inequitable range of motion findings. In our view, the Board’s interpretation of section 1.3 (3) (b) of the guidelines to apply only to permanent physical or functional impairments is unreasonable and cannot be upheld … . Here, the Board rejected [the] findings that a comparison of the contralateral members was inappropriate due to a lack of evidence that the injuries that claimant suffered to those members in the 2014 work-related accident resulted in permanent impairments. Under these circumstances, we remit the matter to the Board so that a proper assessment regarding a comparison of contralateral members may occur … . Matter of Brooks v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 00130, Third Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the problems raised by determining a loss of schedule use by comparing ranges of motion on both sides of the body. Comparison of the injured side to the other side may not be appropriate if the other side has been injured in the past.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an excavated area four or five feet below ground level when a worker at ground level threw a board into the excavated area which struck plaintiff. Apparently throwing boards into the excavated area was part of the work, so the Labor Law 200 and negligent supervision causes of action survived:

Defendant thus demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff was not injured by an “object [that] fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .T he burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which plaintiff failed to do” … , requiring dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. * * *

Defendant’s proof showed that the dig area was not “normally exposed to falling material or objects” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [a] [1]), and, in any event, plaintiff was working only four to five feet below grade. Thus, defendant demonstrated the “overhead protection” regulation was not applicable … . Accordingly, defendant met its preliminary burden to show that plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 241 (6) as a matter of law … . Plaintiff’s proof does not raise an issue of fact on this point, thus dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim should have been granted … . James v Marini Homes, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: If the safety precautions related to falling objects are not applicable because the plaintiff was working in an area where falling objects could not be anticipated, then the “falling objects” protections in Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) will not be triggered.

 

,

THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST “ASSISTED LIVING” AS OPPOSED TO “RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE” FACILITIES; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMSSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Public Health Law does not create a right of private action against an “assisted living facility” as opposed to a “residential health care facility.” Here the plaintiff attempted to sue the defendant assisted living facility for alleged deficiencies and the complaint was properly dismissed:

Public Health Law § 2801-d creates a private right of action distinct from traditional claims for medical malpractice and negligence, and it provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny residential health care facility that deprives any patient of said facility of any right or benefit, as hereinafter defined [in Public Health Law article 28], shall be liable to [the] patient for injuries suffered as a result of said deprivation” (Public Health Law § 2801-d [1] …). A residential health care facility is defined, in turn, as “a nursing home or a facility providing health-related service” (Public Health Law § 2801 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2801 [4] [b]).

An assisted living facility, in contrast, is governed by Public Health Law article 46-B instead of Public Health Law article 28, being defined as a facility that “provides or arranges for housing, on-site monitoring, and personal care services and/or home care services (either directly or indirectly), in a home-like setting to five or more adult residents unrelated to the assisted living provider” (Public Health Law § 4651 [1]). DeRusso v Church Aid of the Prot. Episcopal Church in the Town of Saratoga Springs, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: The statutory private right of action created by the Public Health Law for suits against “residential health care facilities” does not apply to “assisted living facilities.”

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO “NEW FACTS” WERE DEMONSTRATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1) action, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew his summary judgment motion should not have been granted. Plaintiff was attempting to disassemble a freezer when the freezer roof collapsed and he fell to the floor:

Pursuant to CPLR 2221, a motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . In his motion for leave to renew and reargue, plaintiff sought to admit a supplemental expert affidavit in which plaintiff’s expert sought to clarify that accessing the freezer’s ceiling was an essential task of disassembly. Plaintiff averred that this information was not proffered before because he was not on notice that he needed to address the different tasks required for disassembly. However, our review of the original motion papers reveals that, not only did the expert’s original affidavit briefly address the need for plaintiff to climb on top of the freezer, but also that [defendant’s] affirmations in opposition were sufficient to put plaintiff on notice that the necessity of plaintiff’s work on the ceiling would be at issue … . Additionally, as plaintiff had already retained an expert, there was nothing preventing plaintiff from submitting additional evidence in reply to [defendant’s] affirmations in opposition, prior to the court’s original determination … .Therefore, Supreme Court improperly granted plaintiff’s motion to renew, and plaintiff’s supplemental expert affidavit should not be considered on summary judgment … . Burgos v Darden Rests., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point:  A motion to renew a summary judgment motion must be based upon new facts which could not have been addressed in the initial motion, not the case here.

, , ,

BEFORE HEARSAY CAN BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT, THE PEOPLE MUST ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and remitting the SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined County Court should not have relied on hearsay to prove that the adult in a photograph depicting sexual activity between an adult and a child was the defendant. The case was remitted to allow the People the opportunity to establish a foundation for the reliability of the hearsay:

In assessing defendant 25 points under risk factor 2 for sexual contact with the victim, County Court relied upon a contested statement in the case summary made by an assistant district attorney to the author of the case summary. The assistant district attorney stated that defendant had possessed an image depicting him and his female relative engaged in sexual activity. The People concede, and we agree, that County Court improperly relied upon this hearsay, without making an inquiry into its reliability, in assessing 25 points under risk factor 2 for sexual contact with the victim. While the court found that the photographs depicted sexual activity between the child and an adult, it made no finding that defendant was that adult. The People therefore failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was any sexual contact between defendant and the victim … .

Although defendant argues that the remedy for the error is to subtract 25 points from risk factor 2 and, upon doing so, designate him a risk level one sex offender, we agree with the People that the more appropriate course is to remit the matter to the SORA court “to provide the District Attorney an opportunity to establish a foundation” supporting the hearsay’s reliability … . People v Davis, 2024 NY Slip Op 06632, Third Dept 12-26-24

Practice Point: The People must establish a foundation supporting the reliability of any hearsay relied upon by the court in a SORA risk-level assessment proceeding.​

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE PREJUDICED BY THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WHICH DID NOT ALTERNATE THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES; THE FIRST QUESTION POSED TO THE JURY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED THE JURORS FROM CONSIDERING THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the jury verdict and ordering a new trial in this Insurance Law 5102(d) “serious injury” case, determined the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the jury selection method used the trial judge, and the first question on the verdict sheet was improper because it effectively precluded the jury from considering the relevant question, whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury:”

The court’s failure to alternate the peremptory challenge process … placed plaintiffs in the untenable position of having to utilize a peremptory challenge for a prospective juror that may not have been necessary had defendants been required to go first. This error compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Plaintiffs further contend that Supreme Court erred by including the first question on the verdict sheet — i.e., “[h]ave the plaintiffs . . . established that the incident . . . was a substantial factor in causing [Mormile’s] injuries?” We agree.  The specific issue for the jury to resolve was whether, as a result of the subject accident, Mormile sustained a “serious injury” as set forth in question 2 on the verdict sheet (did Mormile “sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system”); question 3 (did Mormile “sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member”); question 4 (did Mormile “sustain a injury that resulted in a significant disfigurement”); and question 5 (did Mormile “suffer a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature . . . that prevented him from performing all of the material acts that constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident?”).

The first question effectively only asks whether there was probable cause to establish that Mormile’s injuries resulted from the accident (see PJI 2:70). Having answered “No” to that global question, the jury did not answer questions 2 through 5. In effect, the jury did not resolve the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether Mormile sustained a “serious injury” in the accident, as defined under each of the four distinct categories at issue … . Mormile v Marshall, 2024 NY Slip Op 06390, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Failure to alternate the peremptory challenges compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Practice Point: The first question on the verdict sheet effectively precluded the jury from considering the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law.

 

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