You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department vacated the village board’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings that the construction of a parking garage would not result in a substantial increase in traffic. The board conducted a SEQRA review in preparation for a condemnation proceeding to acquire the land:

… [T]he record fails to establish that the Village Board took the requisite hard look at potential traffic implications associated with the construction of a parking garage on the subject property or to set forth a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination that the development of the property would not result in any substantial increase in traffic. Upon review of an eminent domain proceeding, courts are required to determine whether the condemnor’s findings and determinations comply with ECL article 8, which is incorporated as part of the required procedures under EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law] article 2 … . In assessing compliance with the substantive mandates of SEQRA, we are tasked with reviewing the record to determine whether the Village Board, as the lead agency, “identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination” … . “Literal compliance with both the letter and spirit of SEQRA is required and substantial compliance will not suffice” … .

… An adverse change in traffic levels is … a potential area of environmental concern … .

During both the public hearing and the written comment period, concerns regarding increased traffic congestion and other potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed condemnation were repeatedly voiced. Yet, the record is bereft of any evidence that the Village Board took the requisite hard look at these potential traffic implications. Matter of Adirondack Historical Assn. v Village of Lake Placid/lake Placid Vil., Inc.,2018 NY Slip Op 03194, Third Dept 5-3-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TRAFFIC, VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/CONDEMNATION (MUNICIPAL LAW, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/EMINENT DOMAIN (MUNICIPAL LAW, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rumsey, over a two-justice partial dissent, upheld the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) determinations regarding snowmobile trails in newly added portions of the Adirondack Park. Because approval of the trails was still subject to permits and variances, two of petitioners’ causes of action were deemed not ripe for review. The Third Department determined there was no conflict between the Rivers System Act and the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. The Rivers System Act was deemed to control and the act allowed the proposed snowmobile traffic as a continuation of an existing use. And the Third Department held that a 2009 “guidance” document for the siting of snowmobile trails adopted by the DEC did not commit the DEC to a definite course of future action. Concerning the “ripeness” issue, the court wrote:

… [P]ermits and variances must be obtained through further administrative action before the proposed uses may be established. Specifically, permits are required to erect a bridge over a scenic river …  or to construct a trail within a scenic river area … . Moreover, variances are required for the use of motorized vehicles within scenic river areas … , and for construction of a Class II snowmobile trail, to the extent that it may exceed the maximum trail width of four feet that is permitted by regulation … . Permit and variance applications are governed by the Uniform Procedures Act … , which imposes conditions related to the substantive relief sought and provides the opportunity for further public participation. No permit or variance may be granted unless the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Rivers System Act … , and conditions may be imposed as necessary to preserve and protect affected river resources or to assure compliance with the Rivers System Act … . Moreover, there is an opportunity for public comment on applications for a permit or a variance …  and the granting of a permit or variance may be challenged through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Thus, inasmuch as the harms upon which the first and second causes of action are based may be prevented or ameliorated by further administrative action, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the first and second causes of action are not ripe for judicial review. Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of The Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2018 NY Slip Op 03193. Third Dept 5-3-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/ADIRONDACK PARK (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/RIPENESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/SNOWMOBILES (ADIRONDACK PARK, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/LAND USE (ADIRONDACK PARK, SNOWMOBILES, (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined respondent (defendant) did not receive effect assistance of counsel in the commitment proceedings following his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease of defect (re: assault charges).

CPL 330.20 requires County Court to conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of psychiatric examination reports for the purpose of assigning an insanity acquittee to one of three “tracks” based upon his or her present mental condition … . “Track-one [acquittees] are those found by the trial judge to suffer from a dangerous mental disorder; i.e., a mental illness that makes them a physical danger to themselves or others. Track-two [acquittees] are mentally ill, but not dangerous, while track-three [acquittees] are neither dangerous nor mentally ill” … . County Court’s finding in this case placed respondent in track one, a status “significantly more restrictive than track two” … . “Track status, as determined by the initial commitment order, governs the acquittee’s level of supervision in future proceedings and may be overturned only on appeal from that order, not by means of a rehearing and review” … . Given the “vital[] importanc[e]” of track designation… , the initial commitment hearing was plainly “a critical stage of the proceedings during which respondent was entitled to the effective assistance of counsel, [requiring us to] consider whether counsel’s performance therein viewed in totality amounted to meaningful representation” …  We agree with respondent that counsel’s performance fell short of that standard.

By affirmatively stating at the initial hearing that she “was not contesting any findings” contained within the psychiatric reports, respondent’s counsel conceded that respondent had a dangerous mental disorder and, thus, implicitly consented to his confinement in a secure facility. Counsel did not call any witnesses or seek to cross-examine the psychiatrists who prepared the reports … , nor did counsel consult an expert on respondent’s behalf who may have offered a contrasting opinion as to his mental status or, at the very least, could have clinically assessed the examination reports and the approaches taken in reaching their ultimate conclusions … . Despite petitioner’s protestations to the contrary, there is no basis in this record to conclude that pursuit of any of these avenues — particularly cross-examination of the psychiatric examiners — would have been futile or otherwise destined for failure … . Under these circumstances, we are simply unable to discern any plausible strategy or legitimate explanation for counsel’s decision to completely acquiesce to the most severe track classification … . Matter of Matheson Kk., 2018 NY Slip Op 03195, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY ACQUITEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, INSANITY ACQUITTEE,  RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/INSANITY ACQUITTEE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE,  RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/COMMITMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, ATTORNEYS,  RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (CPL) 330.20 (COMMITMENT, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))

UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s negligent homicide conviction, determined there was no valid line of reasoning that could have led to the verdict in this hunting accident case. The facts were stipulated in this nonjury trial. The victim, who was in the defendant’s hunting party, was in an area all had agreed was off limits and there was evidence defendant reasonably mistook the victim for a deer:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , there is no valid line of reasoning that could have led County Court to conclude that defendant engaged in any “blameworthy conduct” that created or contributed to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death … . As stipulated to by the parties, … defendant had “no reason to believe [that] any of his three companions would be in the area where he was shooting.” Defendant’s hunting party was not engaged in the hunting practice of “driving” the deer … , and they had instead agreed to hunt from separate, stationary tree stands that had been specifically positioned prior to the hunt “in such a way that no one would be shooting in the direction of another hunter.” Additionally, … defendant and the property owner had specifically advised the victim that, should he decide to again leave his designated stand before the hunt was over, he should take a specific route … that was outside of the hunters’ respective lines of fire. Moreover, there was no evidence that defendant had consumed any alcohol or drugs prior to the hunt, and he was unaware that the victim had cocaine and opiates in his system. While defendant made the tragic and deadly error of mistaking the camouflage-dressed victim for a buck, we cannot say — under the stipulated set of facts — that his actions rose to the level of criminal negligence … . People v Gerbino, 2018 NY Slip Op 03179, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE  (UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/HUNTING ACCIDENT (NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE, (UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the relation-back doctrine did not apply to the attempts to amend the complaint in this Worker’s Compensation trust action. The trust was formed as self-insurance for Workers’ Compensation claims, but was determined to owe the Workers’ Compensation Board $220 million. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here.  It comprehensively addresses the criteria for amending complaints, the relation-back doctrine, the General Business Law section 350 cause of action, and the corporate alter ego (piercing the corporate veil) pleading requirements:

“[T]he rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . A claim is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit where it would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. …

Where the issue is whether a claim may be interposed against a defendant who was named as a party before the statute of limitations expired, the query is limited to whether the earlier complaint “gave notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … . …

“The relation back doctrine permits a [plaintiff] to amend a [complaint] to add a [defendant] even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the [plaintiff] can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added [defendant] is united in interest with a previously named [defendant], and (3) that the later-added [defendant] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [plaintiff] as to the later-added [defendant’s] identity, the [action] would have also been brought against him or her” … . …

The corporate veil will be pierced and liability imposed when either (1) there is complete domination of a corporation by an individual or another corporation with respect to the transaction being attacked that resulted in a fraud or wrong against the complaining party, or (2) “when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . Here, the proposed complaint alleges only that [the two entities] had common owners, officers and directors and that they shared the same office space, addresses and telephone numbers. Such allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to plead the elements required to establish alter ego liability … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03196, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PLEADING, ALTER EGO, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATE VEIL, PIERCING (PLEADING,  CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a partial dissent, took pains to explain the current law distinguishing between a nonactionable misstep from an actionable slip and fall in the context of a police officer’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The officer fell descending stone steps which he had used without incident a couple days before. The officer testified there was a slimy or icy substance on the step which he did not notice until after the fall. The Third Department couldn’t discern the precise grounds for the state comptroller’s denial of the benefits and sent the matter back for findings and conclusions based upon the law as explained in the opinion (which is too detailed to be fully described here):

… [T]he controlling standard for determining whether an injury was caused by an accident for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law remains whether the precipitating event was sudden, unexpected and not a risk of the work ordinarily performed … . In considering whether a particular petitioner has met that standard, courts should not rely on whether a condition was readily observable. Denial of benefits continues to be appropriate where the injury was caused by the employee’s misstep. Whether the employee’s inattention caused an accidental injury depends on the circumstances — i.e., was it essentially a misstep, without more, or was it based on the failure to notice something that was readily observable — and presents a factual issue. Similarly, when determining whether a precipitating event was unexpected, respondent and courts may continue to consider whether the injured person had direct knowledge of the hazard prior to the incident or whether the hazard could have been reasonably anticipated, so long as such a factual finding is based upon substantial evidence in the record. Stancarone v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 4-26-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICE OFFICERS, SLIP AND FALL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AD SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT))

,

VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this pedestrian-car accident case (exonerating defendant driver from any comparative fault) should have been granted. Defendant testified she saw persons in the road about 100 yards ahead but did not slow down. When she realized she was going to hit someone she swerved to the left, apparently striking plaintiff at that point:

As a general matter, a motorist has a duty to maintain a proper lookout under the driving circumstances presented and to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed… . A motorist is further “required to keep a reasonably careful look out for pedestrians, to see what was there to be seen, to sound the horn when a reasonably prudent person would have done so to warn a pedestrian of danger and to operate the car with reasonable care to avoid hitting any pedestrian on the roadway” … . These principles in mind, defendant testified that she first observed three people at the edge of Route 9N in front of the Algonquin restaurant heading across the road toward the parking lot on the west side. She estimated being “[p]robably about a football field” away when she first saw the pedestrians. She also estimated her speed at 30 miles per hour and acknowledged that she did not slow down. Explaining how the accident occurred, defendant testified as follows: “As I got closer to the people, who I thought were crossing the road, they were not moving and I knew that if I continued I would hit them so I severely twisted my wheel of the car thinking I could get around them.” She stated that, as she turned her wheel to the right, the pedestrians were on her left. She did not decrease her speed prior to swerving and could not remember sounding her horn.

Defendant’s version of the accident places Blanchard in the roadway, while Blanchard testified that she was in the west shoulder area at the time of impact. Even accepting defendant’s version, her testimony confirms that Blanchard was within her view for a distance of about 100 yards and defendant was aware that Blanchard was crossing the road, and yet, defendant did not slow down or sound her horn. Defendant’s own account confirms that she failed to take any evasive action until the last moment. In our view, defendant’s failure to take reasonable measures to avoid hitting Blanchard gives rise to some degree of comparative fault for this accident. As the jury’s verdict exonerating defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of this evidence, a new trial is in order. Blanchard v Chambers, 2018 NY Slip Op 02852, Third Dept 4-26-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))

,

THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, COCAINE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S BUTTOCKS-AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a two-justice dissent, reversing County Court, determined that prison personnel violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights in the manner a body cavity search was conducted. A packet of cocaine was removed from defendant’s buttocks-area during a strip search. Apparently the package could be seen but did not fall out on its own:

Here, there was probable cause, but no showing or claim of an emergency … . Considering that defendant was lying face down, naked and handcuffed, it is evident that the officers could keep him under full surveillance without any concern that the wrapped drugs would be absorbed into his body while efforts were made to procure a warrant … . Nor was any attempt made to seek the assistance of medical personnel to secure the contraband in a safe, hygienic manner… . Also, the record is unclear as to whether [the officer] was wearing gloves. Under the second Bell factor [Bell v Wolfish, 441 US 520], the manner in which this search was conducted was not reasonable. Given the above, we conclude that the search was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the recovered drugs should have been suppressed. People v Holton, 2018 NY Slip Op 02836, Third Deptp 4-26-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (BODY CAVITY SEARCH, THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, COCAINE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S BUTTOCKS-AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/BODY CAVITY SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, COCAINE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S BUTTOCKS-AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, COCAINE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S BUTTOCKS-AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, BODY CAVITY SEARCH, THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, COCAINE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S BUTTOCKS-AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ARGUMENT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW AND COULD NOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FACTS DEVELOPED ON REMITTAL, THE RECORD ON APPEAL THEREFORE WILL NOT ALLOW REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined it could not reach a constitutional issue, regarding whether the authority to prosecute the defendant had been properly delegated to the Special Prosecutor for the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs, because it was not raised below. The dissent argued the court could exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction and send the case back for a factual determination of the issue (delegation of authority to prosecute):

Defendant first argues that the statute authorizing creation of the Justice Center (see Executive Law § 552 [2]) violates the State Constitution because the statute permits an appointed special prosecutor to conduct prosecutions, thereby usurping the constitutional responsibilities and power of the local District Attorney and the Attorney General, both of whom are elected officials. In the alternative, defendant argues that the statute can be viewed as constitutional only if the District Attorney grants the special prosecutor authority to prosecute and retains oversight and ultimate responsibility for the prosecution, but that these conditions were not met in this case. Thus, defendant argues, the indictment must be dismissed because the Justice Center lacked the authority to prosecute him. * * *

This Court is permitted only to reverse or modify in the interest of justice … . But a full review of the issue would be impossible without remittal, so, at this point, we do not now know if we would ultimately reverse, modify or affirm. Because we do not know what the outcome would be, and since it is possible that the outcome could be to affirm, we find no authority that would permit us to take corrective action with respect to this issue in the interest of justice. People v Cubero, 2018 NY Slip Op 02839, Third Dept 4-26-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, ARGUMENT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW AND COULD NOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FACTS DEVELOPED ON REMITTAL, THE RECORD ON APPEAL THEREFORE WILL NOT ALLOW REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ARGUMENT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW AND COULD NOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FACTS DEVELOPED ON REMITTAL, THE RECORD ON APPEAL THEREFORE WILL NOT ALLOW REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, ARGUMENT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW AND COULD NOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FACTS DEVELOPED ON REMITTAL, THE RECORD ON APPEAL THEREFORE WILL NOT ALLOW REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE, ARGUMENT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW AND COULD NOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FACTS DEVELOPED ON REMITTAL, THE RECORD ON APPEAL THEREFORE WILL NOT ALLOW REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the complaint stated causes of action in negligence against the town. Plaintiffs operated and owned property on which they were placing fill. The town issued a permit allowing the filling. The fill caused a substantial landslide. The Third Department found that the complaint alleged a special relationship between the town and plaintiffs, and further alleged that the town engineer did not have the discretion to issue the truncated permit which was issued. Therefore the complaint sufficiently alleged governmental immunity could not be invoked:

Plaintiffs alleged that the Town Engineer directly stated to them that he can “override” the requirements of the Town Code “if [he] is confident that the fill will ‘increase stability’ of the slope” and that, on this basis, he did not require plaintiffs to submit all of the mandated components of a fill permit application. The complaint also alleged that defendant was aware of prior landslides along the same creek and that, after the incident on plaintiffs’ property, the Town Engineer cited a recent study indicating that the local soil was prone to landslides but, regardless of this knowledge, he had suggested to third parties that they dispose of fill at the property. …

Alternatively, plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that a special relationship existed because defendant assumed positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation. Plaintiffs alleged that the filling activities at the property “created a blatant risk of catastrophic failure of the bank,” that defendant “had been made aware of this blatant risk when it intervened at the [p]roperty” and that defendant demonstrated control over the property by directing plaintiffs to cease filling activities and obtain a fill permit and referring third parties to the property to dispose of fill. … * * *

The complaint alleges that the Town Code requires that a full application be submitted for a fill permit, the Town Code mandates that the Town Engineer require that all application components be submitted and that, as regards plaintiffs, the Town Engineer did not require submission of a completed application. Considering these Town Code requirements, the Town Engineer did not have the authority to make a discretionary determination to either grant or deny a fill permit until he had received a completed application, which never occurred here because he told plaintiffs that they did not need to submit some of the components of the application that are required under the Town Code … . Normanskill Cr., LLC v Town of Bethlehem, 2018 NY Slip Op 02697, Third Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (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