You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a limousine driver for XYZ was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

XYZ imposed rules “regarding every aspect of claimant’s performance” and thereby “exercised control over the results produced [and, more importantly,] the means used” to service XYZ’s clients … . While XYZ was obligated to comply with the rules governing the for-hire car service industry established by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the testimony and a comparative review of the rules together established that XYZ’s rules were significantly more specific and detailed or involved interpretations that often went well beyond the Commission’s rules … . Indeed, an officer of XYZ explained that these additional specific requirements were designed “to satisfy the customer expectation.” Thus, as we have consistently done in similar cases, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual determination that claimant was an employee of XYZ, despite the existence of evidence that might support a contrary conclusion … . Matter of Jung Yen Tsai (XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 07807, Third Dept 11-15-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/LIMOUSINE DRIVERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, found that the misbehavior determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner was charged with attempting to mail gang related information. But there was no evidence connecting petitioner to the relevant documents:

… [T]he documentary evidence attached to the misbehavior report and submitted to this Court for in camera review consisted solely of three typewritten pages, which did not have any features or content that could identify petitioner as the author or sender, and did not include the envelope in which the pages were allegedly discovered … . The testimony given by the investigating correction officer, together with the statements that he made in the misbehavior report, established only that the three typewritten pages were forwarded to him from the mail room as mail that petitioner had attempted to send. The investigating correction officer did not testify to having any personal knowledge that petitioner was the sender of those pages. A mail room supervisor testified that, although she was aware that petitioner was the subject of a mail watch at one time, she could not recall the actual incident, and she did not offer any testimony that linked petitioner to the pages at issue… . Further, petitioner did not admit ownership of the documents or otherwise connect himself to them … . To the contrary, petitioner maintained his innocence throughout the administrative proceeding and asserted that he was being retaliated against for having lodged grievances against the mail room staff. In the absence of evidence connecting petitioner to the three typewritten pages, the underlying determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Telesford v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 07397, Third Dept 11-1-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE FALLING FROM AN UNSAFE MAKESHIFT PLATFORM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in his Labor Law 240 (1) action result from a fall from an unsafe makeshift platform made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged the lift with which he was provided could not be used and no other safety equipment was provided:

Defendant is a property owner subject to the statute and he provided no equipment to plaintiff aside from agreeing to rent a lift for plaintiff’s use. Plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was installing siding above a staircase running along the side of the building. He averred that the lift would not fit in the area, he was not provided with a traditional scaffold and he could not have used a “ladder jack” scaffold in the area due to both the equipment being in use elsewhere and the location of the staircase. Plaintiff accordingly fashioned a work platform from his A-frame ladder and a scaffolding plank known as a pick, running the pick between a rung of the ladder and the top landing of the staircase. The pick and ladder were not anchored to the ground or the wall, and plaintiff gave deposition testimony stating that he fell several feet when the contraption slid out from beneath him as he was pushing the new siding into place. An engineer retained by plaintiff opined that the unsecured makeshift platform was unsafe and that defendant violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to furnish adequate safety equipment, such as a proper scaffold and a safety harness, that would have shielded plaintiff from injury. The foregoing was sufficient to “establish[] a prima facie showing of a statutory violation which was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, [shifting the burden] to defendant to submit evidentiary facts which would raise a factual issue on liability” … . …

Defendant responded by arguing that inconsistencies in plaintiff’s account over time raised a material question of fact as to how the accident occurred. * * * [The] variations did not suggest “that plaintiff’s fall and injuries were caused by anything other than the unsecured [pick and] ladder or that plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident[.]” Cooper v Delliveneri, 2018 NY Slip Op 07396, Third Dept 11-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE FALLING FROM AN UNSAFE MAKESHIFT PLATFORM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (THIRD DEPT))

THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the phrase “within five days” in a change of venue statute (CPLR 511) did not impose a five day waiting period:

Asserting that Ulster County was an improper venue for the proceeding, the Steeles served a timely written demand that the proceeding be tried in Oswego County (see CPLR 511 [b]). Four days later, the Steeles moved, in Ulster County, to change venue of the proceeding to Oswego County. The Aarons argue that the Steeles, by failing to wait five days after their demand to allow the Aarons an opportunity to provide a written consent to change venue, failed to comply with the statutory procedure and thereby were not entitled to a change of venue as of right. This argument is based on an interpretation that the language “unless within five days” places a hold on the defendant’s obligation to make a motion, during which time the defendant must simply wait for the plaintiff to respond to the demand (CPLR 511 [b]). We disagree with that interpretation of the statute.

The Aarons’ argument appears to focus exclusively on the phrase “unless within five days.” However, a plaintiff can choose not to respond to the demand, so the defendant may be sitting and waiting for nothing. In our view, the five-day window is a time limit on the plaintiff only, and the defendant is not required to refrain from doing anything during that period. Instead, the limits placed on a defendant under CPLR 511 (b) — other than the 15-day limit to move for change of venue — are contingent on whatever response the plaintiff may provide, rather than a five-day time period. While the five days are a limit on the plaintiff’s ability to respond to the demand, the defendant retains the ability to make the venue motion “unless . . . [the] plaintiff serves a written consent” agreeing to the venue selected by the defendant (CPLR 511 [b]). In other words, the important occurrence for the defendant is the plaintiff granting consent, not the passage of days. If the plaintiff consents to the demanded change in venue, the defendant may not move for such relief. In a situation where the defendant made a motion before the end of the plaintiff’s five-day response window and the plaintiff thereafter consented, the defendant would have to withdraw the motion (which would be unnecessary at that point anyway). Matter of Aaron v Steele, 2018 NY Slip Op 07393, Third Dept 11-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 511 (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))

STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1), 246 )1) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed. The sheetrock which allegedly fell and struck plaintiff’s ankle was not an elevation-related hazard, did not block a passageway, and the defendants had not unloaded or stacked the sheetrock and did not exercise sufficient supervisory control to be liable in negligence:

The mere fact that a plaintiff was struck by an object that fell does not, by itself, give rise to liability under the statute … . Rather, a plaintiff must establish that “the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . That said, “where a plaintiff was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1), the plaintiff cannot recover under the statute” … . …

The record indicates … that the sheetrock was stacked on its long side on the ground before it fell and that plaintiff was on the same level as the sheetrock. …

Regarding plaintiff’s cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), it was incumbent upon plaintiff to show that defendants violated an Industrial Code provision that imposed a specific standard of conduct … . Plaintiff failed in that regard. The record discloses that the sheetrock was stored in the corner of a second-floor room and did not “obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … .

Turning to plaintiff’s remaining claims, “Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty imposed upon . . . general contractors to maintain a safe work site” … . Where the injury stemmed from the methods and means in which a subcontractor performed its work, “there must be a showing of supervisory control and actual or constructive notice of the unsafe manner of performance” … . “Where a subcontractor creates a condition on the premises that results in an unreasonable risk of harm and that condition is a proximate cause of a worker’s injuries, then common-law negligence may be implicated” … . Wiley v Marjam Supply Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07381, Third Dept 11-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined the respondent NYS Public Service Commission did not exceed its rule-making authority when it imposed a moratorium on energy service companies’ (ESCOs’) enrollments and renewals of customers who participate in utility low-income assistance programs (APPs):

Whether agency rulemaking infringes upon the Legislature’s policy-making powers is governed by the “four coalescing circumstances” set forth in Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d 1 [1987]): “whether (1) the regulatory agency balanced costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines, or instead made value judgments entailing difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems; (2) the agency merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance; (3) the [L]egislature had unsuccessfully attempted to enact laws pertaining to the issue; and (4) the agency used special technical expertise in the applicable field” … . …

This Court recently observed that respondent had the statutory authority to require that, in all new and renewal contracts between an ESCO and a residential customer or small nonresidential customer, the ESCO must guarantee “savings in comparison to what the customer would have paid as a full service utility customer or provide at least 30% renewable electricity” … . Citing respondent’s “broad” statutory authority “to set just and reasonable tariff rates for gas and electric corporations pursuant to Public Service Law articles 1 and 4” and that the same discretion allowed respondent to open the state’s energy markets to ESCOs in the first instance, we observed that respondent may “impose limitations on ESCO rates as a condition to continued access” … . The moratorium at issue on this appeal is directly responsive to concerns that ESCOs were costing customers, particularly APPs, more money than if they had just used a utility, a result in direct conflict with the original purpose of opening the energy markets to ESCOs … . ​Matter of National Energy Marketers Assn. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 07378, Third Dept 11-1-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTILITIES, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))/NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))/UTILITIES (LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))/LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE (UTILITIES, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))

,

GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, considering the validity of the plea in the interest of justice because the error was not preserved, determined there was no showing defendant understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty:

Defendant’s contention on appeal, however, is unpreserved for our review because, although defendant made a postplea motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]), his motion was not premised upon the grounds now asserted — to wit, County Court’s alleged failure to adequately inform him of the constitutional rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty …  We nonetheless exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action and reverse the judgment (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]…).

“When a defendant opts to plead guilty, he [or she] must waive certain constitutional rights — the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to a jury trial and to be confronted by witnesses”… . “While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights” … . During the plea proceedings, County Court engaged in an abbreviated colloquy during which it made only a passing reference to certain rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty. Although defendant was advised of his right to a jury trial, the court did not mention the privilege against self-incrimination or the right to be confronted by witnesses… . The court also failed to establish adequately that defendant had consulted with his counsel specifically about his relinquishment of trial-related rights or the consequences of his guilty plea, “instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel” …  about “the indictment, . . . the drug charge, and anything else that [was] important to [him]” … . With no affirmative showing on the record before us that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights at the time he entered his guilty plea, the plea was invalid and must be vacated … . People v Simon, 2018 NY Slip Op 07370, Third Dept 11-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, determined there was a question of fact whether the insurers failed to settle a multi-million dollar medical malpractice claim in bad faith. The facts are interesting but too detailed to fairly summarize here:

To establish bad faith in failing to settle a liability claim, the insured must show that “the insurer’s conduct constituted a ‘gross disregard’ of the insured’s interests — that is, a deliberate or reckless failure to place on equal footing the interests of its insured with its own interests when considering a settlement offer”… . Stated otherwise, the “plaintiff must establish that the defendant insurer engaged in a pattern of behavior evincing a conscious or knowing indifference to the probability than an insured would be held personally accountable for a large judgment if a settlement offer within the policy limits were not accepted” … . It must be shown that “the insured lost an actual opportunity to settle the claim at a time when all serious doubts about the insured’s liability were removed” … . …[I]t is necessary to consider all the facts and circumstances in gauging whether an insurer acted in bad faith in addressing settlement. Key factors include the plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the potential magnitude of a verdict and the corresponding financial burden on the insured and the information available to the insurer at the time the settlement demand was made … . In reviewing these factors in the procedural context of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party … . * * *

It was clear from the inception of this case that if a jury held [the doctor] accountable, the verdict would exceed the total coverage — and that, indeed, was the [plaintiffs’] settlement position throughout. As such, it was incumbent upon [the insurers] to be fully engaged and attentive to the case, particularly after the jury highlighted question No. 6 (re: cost of future care) on the verdict sheet. To suggest that there was not enough time to respond is unpersuasive. This was crunch time, the stakes were unquestionably high and [the insurers] had a contractual responsibility to fulfill.  Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v Parentis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07224, Third Dept 10-25-18

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/BAD FAITH (INSURANCE LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SETTLEMENTS (INSURANCE LAW, BAD FAITH, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although plaintiff had defaulted on an installment land sale contract (re: the payment of school taxes), defendant was not entitled to specific performance and was not entitled to cancellation of the contract and retention of the installment payments:

“[T]he execution of a[n installment] contract for the purchase of real estate and the making of a part payment gives a contract vendee equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of the payment” … . The contract vendor, in turn, “holds the legal title in trust for the vendee, subject to the vendor’s equitable lien for the payment of the purchase price in accordance with the terms of the contract” … . “Accordingly, the vendee under a land sale contract has acquired an interest in the property that must be extinguished before the vendor can resume possession, notwithstanding whether a provision in the contract provides that in the event of the vendee’s uncured default . . ., the vendor has the right to declare the contract terminated and repossess the premises. A vendor may not enforce his [or her] rights by an action in ejectment, but must instead proceed to foreclose the vendee’s equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price” … .

Plaintiff, having made substantial payments to defendant pursuant to the installment land sale contract at issue, acquired equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of all payments made pursuant to the contract. Thus, despite plaintiff’s default under the contract, defendant cannot obtain relief under the provision of the rider that provides for cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of all monies paid by plaintiff as liquidated damages… . Accordingly, to the extent that defendant’s motion sought a declaration to that effect, it must be denied. Defendant’s remedies are, instead, limited to foreclosing plaintiff’s equitable title or bringing an action at law for the purchase price of the property, neither of which defendant has sought … . Further, because defendant could not summarily cancel the contract and resume possession, plaintiff is entitled to continued possession of the premises during such time. Cloke v Findlan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07220. Third Dept 10-25-18

REAL ESTATE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (REAL ESTATE, INSTALLMENT CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT  (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner sex offender was entitled to a Frye hearing to determine the efficacy of an “other specified paraphilic disorder” (OSPD) diagnosis:

… OSPD (nonconsent) is the primary diagnosis upon which respondent relied to demonstrate that petitioner suffered from a mental abnormality under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Citing the lack of specific diagnostic criteria, petitioner contends that this diagnosis is “junk science” that has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community and, therefore, cannot support a finding of mental abnormality. In support of his application for a Frye hearing, petitioner submitted, among other things, Singer’s affidavit, scientific literature in the form of professional articles discussing the controversial nature of PNOS (nonconsent) — the predecessor diagnosis of OSPD (nonconsent) — and questioning its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, as well as various trial court decisions that, following Frye hearings, have concluded that OSPD (nonconsent) is not a generally accepted diagnosis within the relevant psychiatric and psychological communities. In opposition, respondent tendered an attorney’s affidavit and three trial court decisions — two of which concluded that no Frye hearing was necessary — but no scientific literature or professional affidavits. Although we recognize that OSPD is a defined and recognized diagnosis in the Fifth Edition of the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM) and that the Court of Appeals has recognized that PNOS — OSPD’s predecessor diagnosis — is sufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality (see State of New York v Shannon S., 20 NY3d 99, 107 [2012], cert denied 568 US 1216 [2013]), we note that Shannon S. did not determine the issue presently before us, i.e., whether the OSPD (nonconsent) diagnosis has received general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities … . * * *

… [G]iven the controversial nature of the OSPD (nonconsent) diagnosis, on the record before us, we conclude that Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a Frye hearing was improper. Accordingly, we remit this matter to Supreme Court to conduct a Frye hearing, addressing the question of whether the diagnosis of OSPD (nonconsent) has achieved general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities … . Matter of Miguel II. v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07210, Third Dept 10-25-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (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