You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, who delivered newspapers to residential customers, was an employee of Gannett Satellite Information Network:

… [W]e find that the indicators of control contained in Gannett Satellite’s contract with claimant are practically the same as the relevant factors previously identified to establish an employer-employee relationship; accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decisions (see Matter of Smith [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], ___ AD3d ___, ___, 85 NYS3d 796, 797 [2018]; Matter of Race [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 128 AD3d 1130, 1130 [2015]; Matter of Gager [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor, 127 AD3d 1348, 1348-1349 [2015]; Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1166, 1167-1168 [2015]; Matter of Armison [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 122 AD3d 1101, 1102-1103 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 1209 [2015]). Matter of Nicholas (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 08589, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

DANCE INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FOUNDATION CHARTERED BY THE NYS BOARD OF REGENTS TO SET UP ARTISTIC PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the claimant, a dance instructor, was an employee of the foundation which was chartered by the New York State Board of Regents to provide artistic programs in schools. Claimant was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the Foundation retained control over important aspects of claimant’s and other teaching artists’ services. To that end, the Foundation solicited and worked with schools to establish an appropriate artistic program to meet their needs and budget, screened the artists, matched their skills and experience to the schools’ needs and set the artists’ rate of pay, which was less than the Foundation received by contract from the Department, and helps artists work in the academic settings. The Foundation paid the artists directly, upon receipt of weekly invoices provided by the Foundation and completed by the artist documenting hours worked, provided guidelines for them to follow and monitored their progress and hours to stay within the schools’ budgets and program plans. The Foundation fielded and attempted to resolve complaints from schools regarding artists’ conduct or performance and found replacements when needed, and its officers attended the final performances and held evaluation meetings at the end with school personnel and the artists. Matter of Pearson (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 08588, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

,

DEFENDANT CANNOT PLEAD GUILTY TO A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE DEFECT IS JURISDICTIONAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that sexual abuse first degree charge in the superior court information (SCI) was based on a statute which had not yet been enacted at the time of the offense. The defect was jurisdictional and survived the waiver of appeal:

Initially, defendant contends that the waiver of indictment and the SCI are jurisdictionally defective with respect to the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.65 (4) because this provision of the Penal Law was not in effect in 2009 when the alleged criminal conduct occurred. Preliminarily, we note that defendant is not precluded by her unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal from raising this jurisdictional challenge … . The People concede that a jurisdictional defect exists inasmuch as the relevant Penal Law provision did not become effective until November 1, 2011 … , and a defendant may not be charged with a crime that does not exist at the time that the act was committed … . Consequently, defendant’s plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree must be vacated and count 2 of the SCI charging her with this crime must be dismissed. People v Gannon, 2018 NY Slip Op 08582, Thrid Dept 12-13-18

 

THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant veterinary clinic could not be held liable for a dog bite which occurred in the clinic waiting room under a negligence (failure to provide a safe waiting room area) theory. Plaintiff contended the strict liability theory did not apply because defendant clinic did not own the dog:

… [W]e hold that for defendant to be liable for the personal injuries allegedly sustained due to the dog attack that occurred in the waiting room, plaintiff must establish that defendant knew or should have known about the dog’s vicious propensities.

… [P]laintiff acknowledges in her appellate brief that she is not asserting a claim for strict liability against defendant and that her claims against it are grounded in negligence and premises liability. In her opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff likewise conceded that she did not have a strict liability claim against defendant. In any event, even if a strict liability claim could be extrapolated from plaintiff’s pleadings… . As such, Supreme Court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment … . Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08396, Third Dept 12-6-18

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT))/DOG BITE  (DOG BITE, THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT))

,

GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that, although the release signed by plaintiff (Moore) mentioned a 2007 action, the release stated it was not limited to the 2007 action. Therefore it applied to the instant action. The fact that plaintiff may not have intended that it apply to the current proceedings, a unilateral mistake, does not invalidate a contract:

The general release, executed by Moore after he commenced the present action, released defendant “from all manner of . . . claims and demands . . . in law or in equity that against [defendant] he ever had, now has or which he . . . shall or may have for any reason from the beginning of the world to the date of this release.” Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the release is limited by its terms to the 2007 action, noting that “where a release contains a recital of a particular claim . . . and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby” … . The release, however, does not limit or otherwise restrict itself to the 2007 action. Rather, it clearly and unambiguously specifies that it “includes, but is not limited to,” the incident that led to the 2007 action … . Moore executed the release with full knowledge that this action was pending against defendant, and the “timing and unequivocal and unconditional language” of the release therefore demonstrates its applicability to the 2014 action at issue here … . …

Although plaintiffs claim that Moore did not intend for the release to encompass this action when he executed it, “the fact that [Moore] may have intended something else is irrelevant[, as] a mere unilateral mistake . . . with respect to the meaning and effect of the release . . . does not constitute an adequate basis for invalidating” it … . Stevens v Town of Chenango (Forks), 2018 NY Slip Op 08389, Third Dept 12-6-18

CONTRACT LAW (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/RELEASES  (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))

ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the absence of statutorily-required language in the accusatory instrument precluded sentencing defendant as a felony sex offender:

Although a conviction of attempted dissemination of indecent material to a minor in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 235.22) can be considered a felony sex offense subject to sentencing in accordance with Penal Law § 70.80, the accusatory instrument must specify that the offense is charged “as a sexually motivated felony” (CPL 200.50 [4]; see Penal Law § 130.91 [2]). Here, the accusatory instrument did not contain the requisite language, nor did it make any reference to Penal Law § 130.91. As such, defendant was not subject to the sentencing provisions of Penal Law § 130.91, rendering the imposed sentence illegal. People v Lavelle, 2018 NY Slip Op 08378, Third Dept 12-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDERS (SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT))/DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR (SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction under New York’s terrorism statute, applying a weight of the evidence review, determined that, although the defendant threatened to kill a judge in letters to his wife, there was no proof the threat was made to influence or affect the policy or conduct of a unit of government:

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense”… .

… [C]ritically missing is evidence demonstrating that defendant intended to influence a policy of a governmental unit by intimidation or coercion or affect the conduct of a governmental unit — a necessary element of the crime of making a terroristic threat … . …

… [T]he letters here do not indicate that defendant, by threatening violent acts, intended to influence the judge’s policy or conduct. Indeed, the record reflects that, in the time between when the two letters were written, defendant was granted visitation by the subject judge. In our view, they reflect defendant’s vented anger towards those individuals involved in his Family Court proceedings … . … [V]iewing the evidence in a neutral light, it cannot be concluded that defendant intended by his actions to influence a governmental policy or affect a governmental unit and, therefore, the verdict finding defendant guilty of making a terroristic threat is against the weight of the evidence … . People v Richardson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08368, Thirid Dept 12-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TERRORISM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/TERRORISM (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, TERRORISM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, TERRORISM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (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