You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a grassy path used to walk from a parking lot to a school building constituted a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The path had been cleared of ice and snow by a custodian but the plaintiff described the path as wet and muddy, as opposed to having ice and snow on it. There was a paved walkway to the school and there was testimony the grassy path should not have been cleared of snow:

“As the party seeking summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of demonstrating that it had maintained the property in a reasonably safe condition and that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the specific allegedly dangerous condition that resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . To that end, “the scope of a landowner’s duty is measured in terms of foreseeability” … . “Foreseeability of risk is an essential element of a fault-based negligence cause of action because the community deems a person at fault only when the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated” … .

Here, the evidence shows that defendant created the path on which plaintiff fell and, therefore, the only valid inference is that it was foreseeable that people would use the path once it had been cleared… . Thus, defendant had a duty to maintain the path in a reasonably safe condition … . However, whether “a dangerous condition exists is generally a question for the jury” … , unless “only a single inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts” … . The deposition testimony established that defendant’s employee created the path, but there was no testimony regarding whether there was any additional maintenance. Also, although plaintiff testified that the path was wet and muddy, she could not recall if there was snow or ice on it. Therefore, a triable question of fact exists as to whether the path constituted a dangerous condition … . Ellis v Lansingburgh Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/FORESEEABILITY (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))

NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that a new provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which directly related to claimant police officer’s disability claim (anxiety and phobias related to the sight of blood), was intended to take effect immediately and should have been applied by the Board. The Board had denied the claim finding that the sight of blood is a usual occurrence in police work:

In September 2016, claimant applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review, which the carrier opposed. On April 10, 2017, while that application was pending, Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (3) (b) was materially amended, effective immediately. The amendment provided that, as relevant here, “[w]here a police officer . . . files a claim for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred in a work-related emergency, the [B]oard may not disallow the claim, upon a factual finding that the stress was not greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment” … . …

In our view, by directing that the apparent substantive change in the law was to take effect immediately, “the Legislature clearly indicated that th[is] amendment[ is] to be viewed as remedial, designed to correct imperfections in prior law, by giving relief to [an] aggrieved party”… . Moreover, as a general rule, “the law as it exists at the time a decision is rendered on appeal is controlling”… . Consequently, we find that, under these circumstances, the Board was bound to apply the law as it existed at the time it was considering and determining the reconsideration and/or review application, notwithstanding the parties’ apparent failure to make supplemental arguments in submissions to the Board addressing this change in the law. Matter of McMillan v Town of New Castle, 2018 NY Slip Op 04801, Third Dept 6-28-18

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))/BLOOD (ANXIETY RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD, POLICE OFFICERS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))/ANXIETY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ANXIETY RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD, POLICE OFFICERS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF OR A CHANCE TO OBJECT TO A 20 POINT ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE JUDGE SUA SPONTE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new SORA hearing, determined defendant did not have notice of or an opportunity to object to a 20 point assessment made by the judge sua sponte:

“A defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment” … . To that end, SORA requires the People to provide defendant with written notice, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, if they intend to seek a presumptive risk level classification that differs from the Board’s recommendation along with their reasons for doing so… . Similarly, “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be respond” … . People v Maus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04796, Third Dept 6-28-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF OR A CHANCE TO OBJECT TO A 20 POINT ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE JUDGE SUA SPONTE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF OR A CHANCE TO OBJECT TO A 20 POINT ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE JUDGE SUA SPONTE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the injury to petitioner police officer’s hand was not caused by an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The injury occurred when officer was helping to lift a heavy deceased person:

With regard to accidental disability retirement benefits, “[p]etitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that his disability arose out of an accident as defined by the Retirement and Social Security Law, and respondent’s determination in that regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence”… . To qualify as an accident, the underlying incident “must be a sudden, fortuitous, out of the ordinary and unexpected event that does not result from an activity undertaken in the performance of regular or routine employment duties”… . “[A]n injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury”… .

Here, petitioner responded to a call and sustained an injury to his fingers while assisting the medical examiner in carrying a large, deceased male to a transport vehicle. Petitioner acknowledged that this work was within the scope of his job duties, regardless of the heft of the body to be carried. Matter of Iovino v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 04814, Third Dept 6-28-18

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))

DEFECT IN ROADWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL OFF HER BICYCLE OVER THE HANDLEBARS WAS PROPERLY DEEMED TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the road defect which allegedly caused plaintiff to fall off her bicycle over the handlebars was properly found to be trivial and summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendant:

Although a landowner has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition…, trivial defects are not actionable… . “[T]here is no predetermined height differential that renders a defect trivial”… . Instead, courts must consider “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury”… . Thus, “a small difference in height or other physically insignificant defect is actionable if its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnify the dangers it poses, so that it unreasonably imperil[s] the safety of a pedestrian” …

The record includes photographs that confirm the size and location of the defect, relative to the roadway and crosswalk, and evinces that plaintiff previously traversed this area on bicycle several times prior to the accident, without incident. The photographs also reveal that the crosswalk against which the defect is located, made of bricks and demarcated from the asphalt with a granite boarder, would be visible to a bicyclist well before his or her tires made contact with the defect… . Gami v Cornell Univ.,2018 NY Slip Op 04812, Third Dept 6-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (BICYCLE ACCIDENT, TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFECT IN ROADWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL OFF HER BICYCLE OVER THE HANDLEBARS WAS PROPERLY DEEMED TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (THIRD DEPT))/BICYCLES (NEGLIGENCE, TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFECT IN ROADWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL OFF HER BICYCLE OVER THE HANDLEBARS WAS PROPERLY DEEMED TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (THIRD DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (NEGLIGENCE, BICYCLE ACCIDENT, TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFECT IN ROADWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL OFF HER BICYCLE OVER THE HANDLEBARS WAS PROPERLY DEEMED TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (NEGLIGENCE, BICYCLE ACCIDENTS, TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFECT IN ROADWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL OFF HER BICYCLE OVER THE HANDLEBARS WAS PROPERLY DEEMED TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined that the defendant did not have statutory authorization to appeal from a ruling by County Court which allowed the prosecutor access to a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) prepared in connection with defendant’s prior conviction:

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in Saratoga County, and a presentence investigation report (hereinafter PSI) was prepared for County Court prior to his 2006 sentencing. Several years later, an indictment was handed up in Schenectady County charging defendant with various offenses. The Schenectady County District Attorney believed that the PSI contained information relevant to the new criminal action and, as a result, applied to County Court for the limited disclosure and use of the PSI. County Court granted that request, prompting this appeal by defendant. * * *

… [T]he Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office applied for disclosure of the PSI with the aim of using it in a pending criminal action against defendant. The application therefore “relate[s] to a prospective, pending or completed criminal action” so as to constitute a criminal matter, and statutory authorization is required to appeal from any order emanating from it (CPL 1.20 [18] [b]). No such authorization can be found in CPL 450.10 or 450.15 and, thus, the present appeal must be dismissed … . People v Young, 2018 NY Slip Op 04596, Third Dept 6-21-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT)).PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) (DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, had raised a question of fact about whether mats outside shower stalls created a dangerous condition, Plaintiff alleged she tripped on the exposed edge of a mat, which was nine-sixteenths of an inch thick:

… [P]laintiff submitted, among other things, her affidavit, photographs of the mats and the affidavit of Frederick Bremer, an architect who investigated the condition of the locker room. Plaintiff also relied on her own deposition testimony. Plaintiff testified that she was familiar with the locker room and showers because she had been utilizing them five days each week for 11 years and that the photographs accurately depict the condition of the mats. She noted that there were two large, square mats in the shower area that were each comprised of nine smaller interlocking squares. Plaintiff claimed that because the larger mats were never connected, they often moved in relation to each other so that they sometimes overlapped and at other times were located several inches apart — a condition that she claimed had existed continuously since the mats were installed. Plaintiff also stated that she had personally rearranged the mats on several occasions prior to her injury to eliminate the risk of her tripping on them. According to plaintiff, she fell when the toe of her sneaker caught the exposed edge of a mat near the exit to the shower in the location that she marked on one of the photographs that she had submitted.

Bremer concluded that the mats were not properly installed. Specifically, he opined that a gap was created between the mats because they were neither attached to each other nor otherwise properly secured. The resulting gap exposed the edges of the mats, and Bremer opined that the nine-sixteenth-inch height of the exposed mat edges constituted a tripping hazard that violated applicable design standards. He also noted that the manufacturer of the mats recommended installation of a sloped transition piece to eliminate such exposed edges, and that transition pieces were not utilized in the location where plaintiff fell. Facteau v Mediquest Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04631, Third Dept 6-21-18

​NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/FLOOR MATS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant Kain had raised two non-negligent explanations for rear-ending the car in front of him and therefore plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Kain had testified that his brakes didn’t work properly and the cars in front of him stopped abruptly. Although Kain had not raised brake failure as an affirmative defense, the court noted that the defense could be considered in opposition to a summary judgment motion absent surprise and provided the moving party has a chance to respond:

The claim that an accident was unavoidable due to brake failure is an affirmative defense … . However, “[e]ven an unpleaded defense may be raised on a summary judgment motion, as long as it would not be likely to surprise the adverse party or raise issues of fact not previously apparent” … .. Accordingly, a nonmovant may invoke a waived defense to defeat a motion for summary judgment if the movant has the opportunity to respond … . Kain testified at his deposition that the brakes in his vehicle failed, and plaintiffs addressed that issue in their moving papers and again in their reply.

… [D]efendants met their burden to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident. Kain testified that the brakes did not operate normally when he applied them and, further, that the application of the brakes did not appreciably slow the speed of the vehicle as he approached the vehicles that were stopped at the traffic signal. Further, he testified that his vehicle was relatively new and was in good working order, and that the only mechanical problems he had experienced prior to the accident were unrelated to the brakes. He further testified that the brakes operated properly prior to the accident, the inspection was current and the malfunction caused him to apply his emergency brake. …

Kain also testified [the two cars in front of him] abruptly stopped directly in front of his vehicle. He specifically stated that [plaintiffs’] vehicle approached the intersection without slowing, as if it was going to proceed, and that it stopped immediately when the light turned red, thereby forcing the [car behind plaintiffs’] to also stop abruptly. He further testified that he was traveling at or below the speed limit and that he applied his brakes immediately upon seeing that both vehicles had stopped abruptly in his path. Warner v Kain, 2018 NY Slip Op 04630, Third Dept 6-21-18

​NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/BRAKE FAILURE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))

PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the misbehavior determination because there was no proof the superintendent provided written permission to open petitioner’s mail as required by a Department of Corrections directive. All the disciplinary rule violations stemmed from the contents of the mail:

Petitioner’s sole claim is that the Superintendent did not provide written authorization pursuant to Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4422 (III) (B) (9) (see 7 NYCRR 720.3 [e]) for opening the outgoing correspondence that led to the investigation implicating him as the sender. Significantly, such correspondence provided the basis for all of the disciplinary rule violations of which petitioner was found guilty. The directive at issue specifically provides that “[o]utgoing correspondence . . . shall not be opened, inspected, or read without express written authorization from the facility superintendent” … . It further states that “[s]uch written authorization shall set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action” … . Here, there was no proof presented that the Superintendent issued a written authorization supported by specific facts permitting the correction official to open the correspondence. Rather, the record suggests that the authorization was verbal, as no written instrument was ever produced and the Superintendent did not testify at the hearing. Under these circumstances, the determination of guilt must be annulled … . Matter of Sudler v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 04629, Third Dept 6-21-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT))/MAIL (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT)

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED ON THE DATE OF THE DEED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FALL OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that defendant did not rebut the presumption that the deed to the property where plaintiff fell was delivered and accepted the day before plaintiff’s fall:

… [D]efendant submitted, among other things, an executed copy of the referee’s deed transferring ownership of the subject property to defendant, dated March 28, 2013, one day before plaintiff’s alleged accident. Based on the foregoing, there is a strong presumption that the deed was delivered and accepted as of that date (see Real Property Law § 244…). The only additional documentation that defendant submitted to overcome the presumption was an affidavit from Anthony Iacchetta, an attorney who represented defendant’s predecessor in interest in its acquisition of the subject premises and a letter from Iacchetta’s firm dated April 11, 2013. In his affidavit, Iacchetta represents “that the transfer documents executed by the referee were not received by [his] firm until April 11, 2013,” and he provided a copy of the letter sent that same day forwarding said documentation to be countersigned. The documents submitted by defendant, however, do not address the parties’ intent or whether the deed was intended to be delivered and accepted as of April 11, 2013, as opposed to the deed’s March 28, 2013 execution date. Defendant, therefore, failed to rebut the presumption that the deed was delivered and accepted on March 28, 2013 … . Wisdom v Reoco, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04628, Third Dept 6-21-18

​REAL PROPERTY (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED ON THE DATE OF THE DEED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FALL OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEED (THIRD DEPT))/DEEDS (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED ON THE DATE OF THE DEED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FALL OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEED (THIRD DEPT))/DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE (DEEDS, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED ON THE DATE OF THE DEED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FALL OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEED (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, DEEDS, (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED ON THE DATE OF THE DEED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FALL OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEED (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