You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the wife’s request, in this divorce proceeding, to unseal the record of her husband’s criminal proceedings was properly denied. The husband had been charged with an assault against the wife, and the proceedings terminated favorably to the husband (he was granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal). The record was therefore sealed by operation of statute (Criminal Procedure Law (CPL)160.50):

By “provid[ing] for the sealing of records in a criminal proceeding which terminates in favor of the accused” … ,CPL 160.50 “serves the laudable goal of insuring that one who is charged but not convicted of an offense suffers no stigma as a result of his [or her] having once been the object of an unsustained accusation” … . It is undisputed that the charges against the husband related to the December 2015 incident were “deemed dismissed as a result of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and, therefore, the records of that criminal prosecution were sealed” … . The wife does not claim that any statutory exception entitles her to the records. Her primary contention is instead that the husband, by denying the alleged behavior that led to the charges, waived the statutory bulwark against disclosure by “commenc[ing] a civil action and affirmatively plac[ing] the information protected by CPL 160.50 into issue”… ..

The wife’s argument founders upon the fact that it was she, not the husband, who has “place[d] in issue elements that are common or related to the prior criminal action” by alleging the husband’s assaultive conduct … . Prag v Prag, 2018 NY Slip Op 03414, Third Dept 5-10-18

​FAMILY LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, SEALING OF RECORD, WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, SEALING OF RECORD OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT))/SEALING (CRIMINAL LAW, WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT))

PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, held that petitioner-inmate, who was teaching a course on African-American history, did not violate prison rules prohibiting gang activity by describing the the operating rules of the Black Panther Party or by commenting on the Bloods:

While discussing the history of the Black Panther Party and its apparent code of ethics, known as the “Eight Points of Attention,” petitioner stated that the eighth point was “[i]f we ever have to take captives, do not ill treat them.” Later in the class while critiquing another group, known as “Damu” or the Bloods gang, he stated, in relevant part, that “they could be the biggest army across this country if they were to organize themselves.” * * *

A review of the videotape of the class clearly reveals that petitioner made the statements at issue while discussing African-American organizations from an historical, cultural and political perspective and that such statements were consistent with the approved subject matter of the class. At no point did petitioner advocate that the class participants, none of whom were revealed to be gang members, engage in violent behavior by actually taking hostages or that they organize by banding together to become members of the Bloods gang. Rather, the videotape discloses that petitioner engaged in a detailed discussion of various historical events during the 1½-hour class and recited facts regarding these organizations that he thought were relevant in an effort to engage the class participants. Viewing the statements in the proper context, the evidence does not establish that petitioner “engage[d] in any violent conduct or conduct involving the threat of violence either individually or in a group” … or that he “l[ed], organize[d], participate[d], or urge[d] other inmates to participate, in a work-stoppage, sit-in, lock-in, or other actions which may be detrimental to the order of the facility” … . Likewise, the evidence does not demonstrate that petitioner “engage[d] in or encourage[d] others in gang activities or meetings” … . Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 03413, Third Dept 5-10-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT))/GANGS (INMATES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT))

,

PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parties’ conduct after a purported termination of a shareholders’ agreement could indicate the parties intended the contract to continue (an implied contract). Defendant’s motion to dismiss this breach of contract action should not have been granted:

“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, we construe the pleadings liberally, accept the allegations in the complaint to be true, give [the] plaintiff[] the benefit of any favorable inferences and ‘determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'”… . Supreme Court held that defendant could not have breached the shareholders’ agreement in 2016, as the agreement explicitly terminated when he became the “only . . . remaining [s]hareholder” of the dealerships in 2007. It is true that “[w]hen a contract is terminated, such as by expiration of its own terms, the rights and obligations thereunder cease” … . Nevertheless, “the conduct of parties to a contract following its termination may demonstrate that they intended to create an implied contract to be governed by the terms of the expired contract, and whether there was a ‘meeting of the minds’ required for formation of such an enforceable agreement is generally a question of fact” … . It is undisputed that defendant continued to make monthly payments as required by the shareholders’ agreement after the shares were conveyed, and this ongoing compliance with the agreement’s terms required further inquiry into “the conduct of the parties to determine whether the terms of the [shareholders’ agreement] continue[d] to apply” … . Supreme Court accordingly erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that defendant could not have breached the terms of the shareholders’ agreement due to its termination. Harris v Reagan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03408, Third Dept 5-10-18

​CONTRACT LAW (PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3211(PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/IMPLIED CONTRACT (PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO A METH LAB JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DANGER TO OCCUPANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the police officer’s (Tobias’s) warrantless entry into a garage which was being used as a meth lab was justified by the emergency doctrine. The officer saw smoke coming from a broken window in the garage and recognized the odor associated with meth production. The officer testified his fear of an explosion and the related danger to the occupants was the reason he entered the garage:

Tobias’ testimony established that his primary reason for entering the garage was not to arrest defendant or to seize evidence. … Tobias testified that, because he knew “[m]eth labs [to be] dangerous” and to pose a “risk of explosions and fires,” both of his entries into the garage were motivated by his concern for the safety of anyone who may have remained inside … . … [W]e find that Tobias’ warrantless entries into the garage were justified by the emergency doctrine … . People v Alberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 03393 [161 AD3d 1298], Third Dept 5-10-18

suppression, suppress

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS, ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the trial court in this medical malpractice action did not err in allowing the continued participation of the attorney for defendant hospital (AMH) after the action against the hospital had been dismissed. After the dismissal of the action against the hospital, the only liability the hospital faced was vicarious liability for the actions of its physician employee, who was represented by another attorney. The Third Department further found that the plaintiffs’ request, made for the first time at trial, to call an expert to establish, by cell phone and tower information (GIS), the location of a physician who had been called to assist at the hospital was properly denied:

Following the dismissal of all claims of direct negligence asserted against AMH, plaintiffs renewed their motion to have the role of AMH’s counsel limited. While the dismissal of the direct negligence claims rendered AMH’s potential liability purely vicarious in nature, we are unable to conclude that Supreme Court’s refusal to limit the role of AMH’s counsel during the remainder of the trial to essentially that of a spectator was in error. Because AMH’s liability would be determined by the jury’s findings in relation to plaintiffs’ claims of negligence against Olsen [its physician-employee], AMH was entitled to participate in the efforts to defeat those claims … . Supreme Court promised to exert control over the cross-examination of the remaining witnesses by AMH’s counsel, indicating its intent to prevent any attempt by AMH to “reiterate or to plow ground that has already been plowed by one side or the other,” and the record reflects that counsel’s cross-examination of these witnesses, if any, was limited and dealt primarily with different material than that explored on direct examination. The balanced approach taken by the court served to ensure defendants’ valued right to representation by counsel of their choosing while also protecting plaintiffs against the possibility of unduly cumulative and duplicative proof … . Under these circumstances, we find no “clear abuse of discretion” in the course of action taken by Supreme Court nor any prejudice to plaintiffs as a result thereof … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs first notified defendants of their intention to call a GIS expert more than three years after defendants’ respective demands for expert disclosure and during the midst of the trial. Notably, [the physcian’s] cell phone number was provided to plaintiffs during a pretrial deposition more than a year and a half earlier and, thus, plaintiffs possessed the essential facts necessary to investigate the matter — and, if necessary, to retain an expert — long before trial. Plaintiffs’ claim that they did not realize the significance of the calls, and thus the need to subpoena the phone records, until shortly before trial did not, as Supreme Court found, constitute good cause for the delay … . Moreover, we agree with Supreme Court that, given the complex and technical issues presented by the proposed GIS testimony, the mid-trial disclosure of this expert would have prejudiced defendants … . Lasher v Albany Mem. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03402, Third Dept 5-10-18

​ATTORNEYS (ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (EXPERT WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the jury verdict finding the will offered by petitioner had been duly executed was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The will was handwritten by petitioner, not decedent, three days before his death. The decedent, who was terminally ill, had moved to petitioner’s family-type adult home only three weeks before his death. One attesting witness had worked at the home for 28 years. The other attesting witness had lived at the home for seven years and was petitioner’s friend:

A verdict may be set aside as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence where “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … .. A jury verdict may be found to be against the weight of the evidence “where the proof so preponderated in favor of the unsuccessful party that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . * * *

Upon this record, we cannot find legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding that the will had been duly executed … . Further, the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, as it could not have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Matter of Fraccaro, 2018 NY Slip Op 03198, Third Dept 5-3-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))/WILLS (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the finding that petitioner police officer, who slipped and fell on water which had leaked from a water cooler, was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. The hearing officer had found that the incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, but the officer was not entitled to benefits because the water was readily observable. The Court of Appeals has recently ruled that a petitioner need not demonstrate a condition was not readily observable in order to demonstrate the incident was an accident:

Respondent [comptroller] adopted the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer, who found that slipping on the water “was a sudden, fortuitous mischance and undoubtably unexpected and out of the ordinary.” The Hearing Officer denied benefits, however, based solely upon petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the water she had slipped on was not readily observable. In its recent decision in Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli (30 NY3d 674 [2018]), the Court of Appeals stated that “the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that a condition was not readily observable in order to demonstrate an ‘accident’ is inconsistent with our prior case law” … . Inasmuch as respondent concluded that — but for the lack of proof that the water was readily observable — the incident satisfied the criteria to constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, substantial evidence does not support the determination that the incident was not an accident and it must be annulled … . Matter of Daquino v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 03201, Third Dept 5-3-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW , PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/READILY OBSERVABLE CONDITION (ACCIDENTS, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))

,

INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the inmate-petitioner’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, based upon an incident in the county jail, could not relate back to petitioner’s first (pro se) attempt to file a late notice of claim. Petitioner’s first attempt was sent to the court clerk as opposed to the county clerk. The court clerk returned the papers and instructed the petitioner to send them to the county clerk. Nothing further was done by the petitioner until an attorney was assigned and the statute of limitations had passed. The relation-back doctrine could not be applied because the failure to file the original papers with the county clerk was a jurisdictional defect:

… [W]here an action to enforce a claim has not yet been commenced, a party seeking to make an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim should commence a special proceeding in the Supreme Court or the County Court in a county where the action may be properly brought to trial (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [7]…). A special proceeding is commenced by the filing of initiatory papers with the County Clerk in the county in which the special proceeding is brought or with any other person designated by the County Clerk to accept filing… . While the Supreme Court or the County Court may convert an improperly brought motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim into a special proceeding … , the failure to file the application with the appropriate clerk — the County Clerk — is a fatal defect that may not be overlooked or corrected by the court pursuant to CPLR 2001… . Indeed, the filing of initiatory papers with the Clerk of the Supreme and County Courts, rather than the County Clerk, “has been equated to a nonfiling and, thus, ‘a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect rendering the proceeding a nullity'” … . Matter of Dougherty v County of Greene, 2018 NY Slip Op 03192, Third Dept 5-3-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW,  INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF CLAIM, RELATION BACK, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (NOTICE OF CLAIM, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/COUNTY CLERK (FILING LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff (Wellington) was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff, who was working at ground level, was struck on his head by a 25 to 30 pound tire rim that blew off the roof of the building in strong winds. No one was working on the roof due to the wind. The roofing contractor was defendant Tower. With respect to the applicability of Labor Law 240 (1), the court explained:

The statutory protections arise when “the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in the relative elevation at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured” … . The object must have been “material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking,” and it must have fallen “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute”… . Here, a significant elevation-related risk was inherent in the placement of the tire rim on a roof several stories above an area where others were working, particularly in windy conditions. The tire rim, as part of a safety system mandated by federal regulations, was an integral part of Tower’s undertaking in renovating the roof, and, because of the hazard created by the elevation differential, it plainly “required securing for the purposes of [that] undertaking” … .

As for the absence or inadequacy of a safety device, several witnesses testified that tire rims were commonly used in the industry as supports for safety warning systems like the one at issue here, and that cinder blocks and sandbags were sometimes used to secure them by adding additional weight. Tower’s president testified, however, that it was not Tower’s practice to use such securing devices because a tire rim’s weight was enough to keep it from falling. In effect, Tower relied upon the tire rim’s heaviness as a substitute for a safety device — a method that “clearly failed in its core objective of preventing the [tire rim] from falling because [it], in fact, fell, injuring [Wellington]” … . Wellington v Christa Constr. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03199, Third Dept 5-3-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALLING OBJECTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE RETAINING AN ATTORNEY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial in this divorce-custody action, determined Family Court, given the wife’s difficulty in raising money to retain new counsel, should have informed her of her right to assigned counsel pursuant to Family Court Act 262:

… [T]he mother appeared in court, explaining that, although she had retained new counsel, he was unable to attend that day and, therefore, she requested the court to “extend” or “hold off” proceeding with the continuation … . Supreme Court denied the mother’s request for an adjournment, indicating that no notice of appearance had been filed by the mother’s replacement counsel and that it could not rely solely upon her statement that she may be represented by counsel going forward. Supreme Court then proceeded with the trial, informing the mother that, under the circumstances, she was going to have to proceed pro se.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Supreme Court ever advised the mother of her rights pursuant to Family Ct Act § 262 (a). While we appreciate that the mother initially appeared with retained counsel and Supreme Court granted her a lengthy adjournment to obtain a new attorney, it was incumbent upon the court — particularly in light of the mother’s expressed need for several months to obtain the necessary retainer fee — to advise her of the right to assigned counsel in the event that she could not afford same … . In the absence of the requisite statutory advisement of her right to counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [v]) or a valid waiver of such right …, we find that the mother was deprived of her fundamental right to counsel… . DiBella v DiBella, 2018 NY Slip Op 03186, Third Dept 5-3-18

​FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE RETAINING AN ATTORNEY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, AMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE RETAINING AN ATTORNEY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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