You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined that claimant, a railroad employee injured on the job, could only be found eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits if all the relevant parties consented to waive federal jurisdiction under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), which otherwise preempts the Workers’ Compensation Law. The matter was sent back to the Workers’ Compensation Board:

FELA preempts state law remedies, including workers’ compensation claims, “for railway employees injured in the course of employment when any part of that employment furthers interstate commerce” … . An exception is contained in Workers’ Compensation Law § 113, which empowers the Board to award workers’ compensation benefits if “the claimant, employer and insurance carrier waive their federal rights and remedies” … . This can be accomplished with an explicit waiver by all parties or, alternatively, when conduct such as ” representation of the employer by experienced counsel; utilization by the parties of the [B]oard’s machinery at a series of hearings resulting in a series of awards; and payment and acceptance of those awards” demonstrates an implied waiver … . Absent “a joint waiver or agreement evidencing an intention to be bound by” a workers’ compensation award in lieu of the otherwise exclusive FELA remedy, the workers’ compensation claim cannot proceed … . Matter of McCray v CTS Enters., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07997, Third Dept 11-21-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT))/FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA) (IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT))/RAILROAD WORKERS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the arbitration proceeding conducted by Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) had a collateral estoppel effect upon subsequent proceedings concerning the same matter conducted by the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Petitioner was accused of providing marijuana to a resident of a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. The OPWDD arbitration concluded petitioner was not guilty. However the Justice Center essentially sustained the charges. The central question was whether the OPWDD and the Justice Center were in privity, such that the Justice Center must accept the outcome of the OPWDD arbitration:

Collateral estoppel applies to arbitration proceedings, and when the doctrine’s requirements are satisfied, “[an] arbitrator’s factual findings must be accorded collateral estoppel effect” … .

…[T]the Justice Center shared interests with OPWDD in the disciplinary proceeding stemming from its fundamental statutory obligation to “protect[] . . . vulnerable persons who reside in or receive services from [state-operated] facilities” and “assur[e], on behalf of the state, that vulnerable persons are afforded care that is of a uniformly high standard” … . The Justice Center directly served these purposes by participating as counsel in the disciplinary proceeding conducted by OPWDD pursuant to its governing regulations and the pertinent collective bargaining agreement to determine whether petitioner should be terminated from her employment working with vulnerable persons… . …

… The Justice Center is required by statute to develop the code of conduct that governs OPWDD employees such as petitioner who regularly work with vulnerable persons in facilities like the group home at issue here … . …

… [T]he OPWDD form that was used to report the incident … included a section indicating that the Justice Center had been notified and providing the date, time and identification number of the notification … . The Justice Center’s subsequent investigation of the incident was carried out by an investigator who testified that he was employed by OPWDD. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for The Protection of People With Special Needs, 2018 NY Slip Op 07996, Third Dept 11-21-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/ARBITRATION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (ARBITRATION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ARBITRATION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))

,

CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child did not receive effective assistance of counsel in this proceeding to modify visitation. Mother sought to eliminate the scheduled visitation with father and allow the child to visit father as the child wished. Family Court denied the petition:

To effectively represent and protect a child’s interests, the attorney for the child’s role is twofold: (1) help the child express his or her wishes to the court, and (2) take an active role in the proceedings … . By meeting with the child and informing Family Court that the child did not want to continue visitation as ordered, and by requesting and participating in the Lincoln hearing, the trial attorney for the child met the first objective. Given the mother’s limited testimony, however, Family Court understandably characterized the record as “thin.” In our view, the attorney for the child should have taken a more active role in the proceedings by presenting witnesses that could speak to the child’s concerns and/or conducting a more thorough cross-examination of the mother. During his brief cross-examination of the mother, for example, the trial attorney for the child did not attempt to elicit any further information about his client’s behavior and demeanor relative to his visits with the father. On this record, we agree with the argument made by the appellate attorney for the child that the trial attorney for the child did not provide effective assistance. Consequently, the order dismissing the petition should be reversed and the matter remitted to Family Court for further proceedings, including a new fact-finding hearing. Matter of Payne v Montano, 2018 NY Slip Op 07990, Third Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW,  CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAMILY LAW, CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT))

,

FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined father had been denied his right to counsel in this modification of custody proceeding for the reasons explained in Matter of Hensley v DeMun, 163 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2018]:

For the reasons stated in Matter of Hensley v DeMun (supra) – the appeal by the father regarding Supreme Court’s resolution of the two petitions filed by the mother of the nonsubject child – we find that the father was denied the right to counsel, and we must therefore reverse and remit for further proceedings. Matter of DeMun v DeMun, 2018 NY Slip Op 07987,  Third Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))

,

APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the appeal in this child neglect/temporary matter removal had been rendered moot by a disposition which returned the child and the exception to the mootness doctrine, which would allow consideration on appeal, did not apply. The dissent argued that the exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable:

Family Court … rejected respondent’s offer to consent to the continued removal without also admitting that the removal was “necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health”… . Family Court made such a finding at the conclusion of the hearing and issued an order continuing the temporary removal. …

Following the issuance of the appealed-from order, respondent agreed to a resolution in which the violation petition was withdrawn, the neglect petition was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and the child returned to respondent’s care. Contrary to her contention, these developments rendered her appeal moot…  She further argues that this case presents an issue that is “likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question” so as to fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine, pointing to Family Court’s refusal to allow her to waive the removal hearing and consent to the continued removal absent an admission of imminent risk … . Appeals from temporary removal orders are often rendered moot when the petition is disposed of before an appeal on the temporary order is decided … , but issues arising from such orders need not evade review considering the preference available for appeals from orders issued under Family Ct Act article 10 …  More importantly, the law is clear that any order of temporary removal must include a finding that removal “is necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health” … . The contention that this requirement can be waived at respondent’s convenience is not “sufficiently substantial to warrant [invoking] the exception to the mootness doctrine” … .

From the dissent:

While we agree with the majority that this appeal is moot, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies. The substantive issue presented is whether a respondent in a proceeding under Family Ct Act article 10, part 2 may consent to the temporary removal of his or her child. The record shows that Family Court interpreted both Family Court §§ 1022 and 1027 as requiring the court to make a factual finding that a child is in imminent danger before issuing a temporary removal order. That is certainly the case in a contested proceeding… . The distinct question here, however, is whether a parent may consent to the temporary removal, obviating the need for either an admission of wrongdoing or a hearing eliciting facts of imminent risk as required by Family Court. Given the court’s position, it is evident that the issue will readily recur in proceedings before that court. Moreover, appeals from temporary removal orders are routinely found to be moot because a disposition is reached before an appeal is decided … . Because the procedures surrounding the removal of children from their parents are manifestly of public importance, we consider the consent issue important to resolve. It also appears to be novel. As such, we are persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine should be applied … . Matter of Tyrell FF. (Jaquasisa GG.), 2018 NY Slip Op 07985, Third Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, EXCEPTION TO (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant’s affidavit raised sufficient factual questions which could not be answered from the record to warrant a hearing. Defendant alleged he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the marijuana conviction:

“Although a hearing on a CPL 440.10 motion is not always necessary, a hearing is required where the defendant bases the motion upon nonrecord facts that are material and, if established, would entitle the defendant to relief”… . In support of his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant tendered his own affidavit, wherein he asserted that he had completed his prison sentence and period of postrelease supervision and that he was being held at a federal detention facility pending deportation proceedings. He stated that trial counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of being convicted as charged and that, had he been so informed, he would have asked trial counsel “to explore the possibility of a plea bargain rather than take the case to trial, even though [he] continued to maintain [his] innocence.” He further stated that trial counsel’s failure to present him with any plea offer, or to inform him of potential deportation consequences, “caused [him] to forgo any discussion of a plea bargain.” People v Blackman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07982, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s resisting arrest conviction, determined that the trial evidence rendered the resisting arrest count of the indictment duplicitous. At trial evidence of two separate circumstance where defendant was alleged to have resisted arrest, involving different police officers, was presented. Although the error was not preserved, the court considered the issue under its interest of justice jurisdiction:

“Even if a count facially charges one criminal act, that count is duplicitous if the evidence makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict” … . The indictment charged defendant with one count of resisting arrest. According to the record evidence, however, the jury was presented with two instances where defendant resisted an officer’s arrest — one involving the victim that turned violent and the other involving the officers who discovered him in the dumpster. We also note that, during deliberation, the jury asked whether it could consider the incident at the dumpster with respect to the resisting arrest charge or solely defendant’s encounter with the victim. In our view, Supreme Court’s response in rereading count 5 of the indictment failed to dispel any confusion by the jury… . Although this argument is unpreserved for review, we take corrective action in the interest of justice by dismissing count 5 of the indictment with leave to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to a new grand jury … . People v Hilton. 2018 NY Slip Op 07981, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/DUPLICITOUS (CRIMINAL LAW, RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined defendant, an inmate, did not present sufficient proof that Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) personnel acted as agents for the police when investigating a killing in the prison. Defendant alleged that inmates were coerced into testifying against him and evidence of the coercion was Brady material which should have been provided to the defense by the prosecutor. The Third Department found defendant had not met his burden of proof concerning whether the DOCS personnel were acting as agents for the police. Rather, there was evidence that the DOCS investigation and the police investigation were separate and had different purposes. Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction was properly denied:

Several cases have held that “[e]vidence gathered by prison staff . . . generally is not ‘under the control or in the possession of the People or its agents, but [is] instead in the possession of an administrative agency that was not performing law enforcement functions'”… . That said, whether knowledge of a government official or employee may be imputed to the People appears to turn on whether participation in the criminal probe was an ancillary law enforcement task… or whether the level of cooperation between the employee and law enforcement in a particular criminal investigation renders the employee an agent of the People … . Under agency principles, “acts of agents, and the knowledge they acquire while acting within the scope of their authority are presumptively imputed to their principals”… . For example, “[w]hile social workers are generally not agents of the police,” in situations where they engage in a “joint venture” with police agencies to collaborate on child abuse or sexual abuse investigations, share information and a common purpose, and have a “cooperative working arrangement” with police, an agency relationship may exist such that the social workers’ knowledge is imputed to the People … . …

… [I]t appears that the State Police and IG [the DOCS Investigator General] were conducting parallel investigations — one criminal and one administrative, albeit with some obvious and necessary overlap — addressing different aspects of the situation… . The report from the lead IG investigator — who was not called to testify — reveals that he interviewed inmates with the State Police, gathered information for two months after the incident, conferred with State Police and met with the District Attorney. But the report indicates that the IG closed its case six months before defendant’s criminal trial, based on a finding that there was no evidence of staff misconduct, indicating the administrative focus of the IG’s investigation. People v Lewis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07980, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORS, BRADY MATERIAL, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/AGENCY (CRIMINAL LAW, JOINT INVESTIGATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))

NEW YORK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TREATMENT GUIDELINES APPLY TO CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE MOVED TO AND ARE TREATED IN OTHER STATES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly ruled that the guidelines for back pain treatment applied to claimant in Nevada. Claimant qualified for benefits in New York in 1996 and moved to Nevada in 2005:

… [W]e disagree with claimant that the Board impermissibly departed from its earlier decisions, as the Board acknowledged such a departure in its May 2017 decision and articulated its reasons for doing so … . Moreover, we find that the Board’s decision to depart from its prior decisions and apply the guidelines to the out-of-state treatment received by claimant in this case was rational. “The Board has the authority to promulgate medical treatment guidelines defining the nature and scope of necessary treatment” … .. “An agency’s construction of its statutes and regulations will be upheld if rational and reasonable” … . …

There is no dispute that claimant, who was injured in New York but has since moved to Nevada, is entitled to continue to receive medical treatment from qualified physicians in her new state and that the employer remains liable for the reasonable value of necessary medical treatment from qualified physicians in her new state … . In our view, the plain language of the regulations governing the guidelines do not limit their applicability to such medical treatment provided to claimants in other states, and a “treating medical provider” includes “any physician, podiatrist, chiropractor or psychologist that is providing treatment and care to an injured worker pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law” without regard to, or limitation of, geographic location … . Consistent with the regulations, the guidelines also state that “[a]ny medical providerrendering services to a workers’ compensation patient must utilize the . . . [g]uidelines as provided for with respect to all work-related injuries and/or illnesses” … . Matter of Gasparro v Hospice of Dutchess County, 2018 NY Slip Op 07815, Third Dept 11-15-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (NEW YORK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TREATMENT GUIDELINES APPLY TO CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE MOVED TO AND ARE TREATED IN OTHER STATES (THIRD DEPT))

,

CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s injuries did not arise out of his employment. Claimant, a farm worker, used his employer’s ATV to go across the street to where his girlfriend was moving into a house. There was evidence he may have drunk beer, which was prohibited by his employer. When crossing the street to return to the farm claimant was struck by a vehicle and injured:

Regardless of whether claimant was permitted to use the employer’s ATV or to take a break and leave the farm for a brief period of time before returning to work, the employer’s testimony makes clear that consuming alcohol on the job was not a permitted, acceptable or customary deviation from claimant’s employment … . As the record as a whole provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was engaged in an impermissible deviation from his employment at the time of his accident, his resulting injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and, therefore, are not compensable … . Matter of Button v Button, 2018 NY Slip Op 07809, Third Dept 11-15-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

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