You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY DENIED, MATTER REMITTED SO PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because defendants never interposed an answer. The Third Department further determined defendants’ motion for permission to serve a late answer was properly denied. The matter was remitted to afford plaintiff the opportunity to make a late motion for a default judgment. The underlying matter is plaintiff’s action to recover the cost of cleaning up a highway accident involving defendants’ truck:

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment because defendants never filed an answer and, thus, issue was not joined, a prerequisite that is “strictly adhered to”… . Further, summary judgment was not granted here pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) … . Even if defendants are deemed to have appeared by filing a notice of removal of the action to federal court or by other conduct (see CPLR 320 [a]), they did not file a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3011) and, consequently, plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment … . …

Although Supreme Court possessed discretion to permit late service of an answer “upon a showing of [a] reasonable excuse for [the] delay or default” (CPLR 3012 [d]…), the reasonableness of the excuse “is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors”… . … We discern no basis for finding that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion, given the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay … . Gerster’s Triple E. Towing & Repair, Inc. v Pishon Trucking, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08979, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TAX AND WAGE DOCUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FACTUAL BASES FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED DEFENDANTS’ BLANKET ASSERTIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN ACTION TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendant’s blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his wife’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment and her spousal privileges did not justify the denial of plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in contempt or the denial of a motion to compel defendant’s wife to submit to a deposition and produce documents. Plaintiff sought payment of a multi-million dollar deficiency judgment. The Third Department explained that tax returns, W-2 forms and 1099 forms fall withing the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. The Third Department further found that defendant and his wife must provide a factual basis for their refusal to answer each of the 358 questions posed by plaintiff because there had been no showing that criminal proceedings against the defendant were imminent or that the spousal privilege was applicable:

… [D]efendant’s income tax returns, W-2 wage statements and 1099 forms — fall within the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. Under this exception, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be asserted with respect to records which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection” … . “To constitute ‘required records,’ the documents must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the requirement that they be kept must be essentially regulatory, (2) the records must be of a kind which the regulated party has customarily kept, and (3) the records themselves must have assumed ‘public aspects’ which render them analogous to public documents” … . …

… [I]t is not evident that every answer to the 358 questions propounded during the May 2015 deposition, and every disclosure of the remaining documents requested in the subpoena, would subject defendant to a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination. The questions put to defendant were those customarily asked at a judgment debtor examination, and there is no indication that the purpose of the deposition was “anything other than an ordinary search of [defendant’s] assets in order to satisfy the judgment against him” … . … [T]here is nothing in this record indicating, nor does defendant assert, that he is the subject of any criminal investigation or proceeding. More to the point, defendant has not shown that his claimed fear of prosecution is anything other than “imaginary” … .

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Chava Nelkenbaum [defendant’s wife] must be reversed and the matter remitted for an in camera inquiry to test the validity of her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as to each of the questions asked and each of the documents demanded of her. To the extent that Chava Nelkenbaum invoked the spousal privilege as a basis for refusing to answer certain questions propounded at the deposition or to produce documents responsive to the subpoena, we note that the privilege “attaches only to those statements made in confidence and ‘that are induced by the marital relation and prompted by the affection, confidence and loyalty engendered by such relationship'” … . Further, this privilege does not attach to “ordinary conversations relating to matters of business” … . Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v Shaker Gardens, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08975, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

IN THIS CPLR ARTICLE 4 PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RESPONDENT NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION VIOLATED ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY AND THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT-CORPORATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ITS AFFILIATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS AND WHETHER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE APPLIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision too fact-specific to be fairly summarized here, determined issues of fact were presented about whether certain actions taken by respondent not-for-profit corporation (TLCN) breached its fiduciary duty to its not-for-profit corporation affiliate (Coburn) and violated the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. The action was brought by the Attorney General in a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 4 which is similar to a summary judgment motion. The Third Department further held there were questions of fact whether the business judgment rule could properly be applied:

… Supreme Court acted properly in ordering TLCN to adopt a conflict of interest policy … .

… [I]nasmuch as Coburg is an independent corporation, TLCN may not operate Coburg in a manner inconsistent with Coburg’s purpose, nor engage in related party transactions without complying with the relevant provisions of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. * * *

Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether respondents violated their duty to Coburg by improperly utilizing its surplus to benefit TLCN and its other affiliates and by engaging in related party transactions that were not in Coburg’s best interest. …

… [T]he business judgment rule has no place where corporate officers or directors take actions that exceed their authority under the relevant corporate bylaws … , or where they make decisions affected by an inherent conflict of interest… . There are issues of fact in the present record that preclude application of the business judgment rule, specifically regarding whether respondents exceeded their authority by improperly utilizing Coburg’s surplus to benefit TLCN and its other affiliates and by engaging in related party transactions that were not in Coburg’s best interest. Matter of The People of The State of New York v The Lutheran Care Network, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08727, Third Dept 12-20-18

 

, ,

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

 

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