You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant’s employee had recently mopped the area to clean up dog feces and then placed caution signs in the area. There was evidence the floor was extremely wet. The placement of the warning signs did not eliminate all questions of fact about defendant’s negligence:

Defendant’s submissions establish that approximately 20 minutes prior to plaintiff’s fall, defendant’s employee mopped the area where plaintiff fell due to dog feces having been tracked into the store. After the employee mopped the area, he placed two 3½-foot-tall yellow caution signs, one in close proximity to the entrance door, which plaintiff walked directly by when she entered the store. Deposition testimony of several witnesses and a surveillance video established that the floor was extremely wet. One witness, who assisted plaintiff after her fall, stated that the floor was so wet that plaintiff could not get enough traction to get up off the floor. This witness asked for paper towels to dry the floor around plaintiff and only after doing so was plaintiff able to get off the floor. This testimony expressly contradicted the affidavit of the employee who completed the mopping. Therefore, issues of material fact were raised as to whether defendant kept the entrance in a reasonably safe condition, created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Further, the presence of the warning signs does not prima facie establish entitlement to summary judgment as there is a question of fact as to the adequacy of the warning, particularly given the otherwise dry conditions outside, the placement and height of the signs and the heavy customer traffic where the signs were set … . Firment v Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02700, Third Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT))/WARNING SIGNS (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.,RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT))

,

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THAT LOANS, NOTES AND MORTGAGES WERE PROHIBITED TRANSFERS UNDER THE MEDICAID LAW, TRIGGERING A PENALTY PERIOD BEFORE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID NURSING HOME BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined substantial evidence supported the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) determination that loans, notes and mortgages were transfers for less than market value in an attempt to qualify for Medicaid payments for nursing home care. Therefore a penalty period of ineligibility was properly imposed:

Assets conveyed through a note or a mortgage during the look-back period are considered to be transfers for full market value when the underlying loan is actuarially sound based upon the lender’s life expectancy, provides for equal payments throughout the life of the loan — with no deferrals or balloon payments — and includes a provision prohibiting cancellation upon the lender’s death … . Here, the mortgage was not actuarially sound, as its 30-year repayment term significantly exceeded the anticipated life expectancy of the spouse, who was 76 years old at the time of the transfer. After the rejection of petitioner’s Medicaid application, the spouse executed an amended mortgage that reduced the repayment term to five years. However, this amended mortgage provided for the same monthly payment as had the original document, with a balloon payment at the end of the five-year term; it thus did not comply with the separate requirement for equal payments throughout the life of the loan. Moreover, neither the original nor the amended version of the mortgage included the required provision prohibiting cancellation upon the spouse’s death; the 2010 note likewise included no such provision. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports DOH’s determination that neither transaction was made for fair market value … . Matter of Wellner v Jablonka, 2018 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-19-18

MEDICAID (SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THAT LOANS, NOTES AND MORTGAGES WERE PROHIBITED TRANSFERS UNDER THE MEDICAID LAW, TRIGGERING A PENALTY PERIOD BEFORE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID NURSING HOME BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/MORTGAGES (MEDICAID, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THAT LOANS, NOTES AND MORTGAGES WERE PROHIBITED TRANSFERS UNDER THE MEDICAID LAW, TRIGGERING A PENALTY PERIOD BEFORE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID NURSING HOME BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/NURSING HOMES (MEDICAID, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THAT LOANS, NOTES AND MORTGAGES WERE PROHIBITED TRANSFERS UNDER THE MEDICAID LAW, TRIGGERING A PENALTY PERIOD BEFORE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID NURSING HOME BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

,

NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that husband did not present sufficient proof to warrant a change in the support provisions of the settlement agreement, as opposed to a child support order. No child support order was in effect at the time the husband sought to reduce the support obligation described in the settlement agreement:

“The case law distinguishes between modification of a separation agreement and that of a divorce decree. A separation agreement that is incorporated into but not merged with a divorce decree is an independent contract binding on the parties unless impeached or challenged for some cause recognized by law. Indeed, courts of this [s]tate enjoy only limited authority to disturb the terms of a separation agreement” … . The husband sought modification of the terms of the agreement with respect to his child support and maintenance obligations, by motion, on the ground that his loss of employment constituted a change in circumstances that warranted modification — a standard that applies to modification of orders and judgments … — but he made no argument that the settlement agreement was invalid. Supreme Court may, upon a proper showing establishing a change in circumstances, modify an order or judgment of divorce that incorporates a settlement agreement. However, the court had no authority under the present circumstances to grant the husband’s motion by modifying the settlement agreement. Abdelrahman v Mahdi, 2018 NY Slip Op 02698, Third Dept 4-19-18

​FAMILY LAW (NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT  (NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT))

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial court erred when it deviated from a stipulation entered into by the parties concerning the measure of damages for trees inadvertently cut and removed from plaintiffs’ property by defendants:

… Supreme Court erred in deviating from their stipulation in rendering the damages award. No grounds have been shown to vacate the parties’ clearly expressed agreement as to the merchantability of the various trees or the methodology to be used in formulating the award. As the parties here were “free to chart their own course [and] fashion the basis upon which [this] particular controversy [would] be resolved” … , Supreme Court was not free to substitute its own judgment for that of the parties … . We must therefore determine, in the exercise of our discretion and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded as a consequence of defendants’ illegal removal of the 442 trees from plaintiffs’ property. * * *

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and mindful of the overriding purpose and intent of RPAPL 861, we find that plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages of $250 per tree for the 442 trees cut and removed… . We emphasize that our discretionary determination in this regard is narrow and circumscribed by the parties’ stipulation … , which we are bound to honor. Halstead v Fournia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02525, Third Dept 4-12-18

​REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/TIMBER (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/TREES (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action for negligent entrustment of a motorcycle properly survived a summary judgment motion. The motorcycle was borrowed by Perkins from Hines. When Zimmer pulled out of his driveway, Perkins, who was operating the motorcycle, swerved and hit a tree. Perkins sued Zimmer and Zimmer sued Hines for negligent entrustment. Perkins had a driving permit but did not have a driver’s license:

… [T]his appeal deals with a negligent entrustment cause of action; the issue is not Perkins’ negligence in operating the motorcycle, but whether Hines should have entrusted the motorcycle to him in the first instance … . Thus, the fact that Perkins did not possess a motorcycle license “is a factor to consider in determining whether” Hines knew or should have known if Perkins was competent to operate her motorcycle. …

We reject Hines’ argument that a negligent entrustment cause of action cannot stand under the present circumstances because the person who was injured (Perkins) was the one to whom a dangerous instrument was allegedly negligently entrusted … . Similarly, it is irrelevant that Zimmer was not physically injured. The injury alleged to him here is “financial harm resulting from potential liability of a ‘concurrent’ tort-feasor” for Perkins’ injuries while using the dangerous instrument … . Zimmer is not precluded from obtaining a recovery from Hines merely because Perkins may not be able to directly recover from Hines based on her negligent entrustment of the motorcycle to him; the situation is analogous to one in which a third-party tortfeasor “may implead for contribution or indemnity the employer of an injured employee, despite the employee’s inability to recover from the employer directly” due to the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Perkins v County of Tompkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 02530, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/MOTOCYCLES (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVER’S LICENSE ( (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendants did not eliminate all trial issues of fact in this ice and snow slip and fall case. The defendants did not demonstrate when the area had last been cleared or inspected. The fact that the fall occurred in a restricted area was not determinative because defendants were aware the area was used by people and there were no signs instructing people not to use it:

Even if we agreed with defendants that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition, we conclude that defendants did not meet their initial moving burden inasmuch as their own proof failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact on the issue of constructive notice… .. In this regard, defendants’ proof, including the photographs, did not suffice to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area in question … . Additionally, even though the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was a restricted area, the record evidence shows that defendants were aware that people would cross through this area and there were no signs instructing people not to do so. Hurley v City of Glens Falls, 2018 NY Slip Op 02529, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant municipality and hockey club were negligent in failing to adequately protect the plaintiff, a spectator, from being struck by a hockey puck, The goals had been repositioned in areas where there was no protective netting behind them:

It is well-settled that an owner or operator of an athletic field or facility “is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators” … and that, under the assumption of risk doctrine, consenting “[s]pectators and bystanders . . . assume risks associated with a sporting event or activity, even at times when they are not actively watching the event” … . However, “a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks”… . Notwithstanding a spectator’s assumption of risk, an owner or occupier of land remains under a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent injury to those who are present on the property … . In the context of hockey rinks, “the owner’s duty owed to spectators is discharged by providing screening around the area behind the hockey goals, where the danger of being struck by a puck is the greatest, as long as the screening is of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire to view the game from behind such screening” … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ proof demonstrating that defendants’ repositioning of the hockey goals along the less protected sides of the rink — “where the danger of being struck by a puck is greatest” …  — was sufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants satisfied their reasonable duty of care owed to the child walking down the ramp behind the repositioned goal. Smero v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 02521, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/SPECTATORS (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/HOCKEY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))

WATER DAMAGE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, WAS DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM WEAR AND TEAR AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in this property damage case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged  water damage to its hotel was caused by Hurricane Sandy. There was an exclusion in the policy for “wear and tear.” The insurer’s expert presented evidence that the water damage was due, inter alia, to improper flashing and the absence of proper caulking around the windows:

The dictionary definition of “wear and tear” is “the loss, injury, or stress to which something is subjected by or in the course of use” … . Nothing in the policy language suggests that an average insured would expect the phrase to have another meaning or that the language is subject to any other reasonable interpretation.

As for the application of the exclusion in this case, defendant supported its summary judgment motion with the affidavit and report of an engineer with experience in “structural investigation[s] and failure determinations” who inspected the property several weeks after the hurricane. His examination of the hotel’s exterior walls revealed “improper flashing detail” consisting of failed caulk that had originally been installed to seal the areas where each room’s exterior walls and windows met the hotel’s concrete floors and surrounding masonry walls. According to the engineer, the caulk had separated from these surfaces as a result of age and lack of maintenance, creating spaces through which water could migrate into the walls. The engineer observed significant deterioration in the walls’ internal framing, as well as other indications that water had been seeping into the walls for a long time; in a follow-up inspection several years later, he also found evidence that water continued to enter the walls after the hurricane as a result of the failed caulk, causing new damage to surfaces that had been repaired after the storm. Superhost Hotels Inc. v Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 02519, Third Dept 4-12-18

INSURANCE LAW (WATER DAMAGE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, WAS DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM WEAR AND TEAR AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION (THIRD DEPT))/WEAR AND TEAR (INSURANCE LAW, WATER DAMAGE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, WAS DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM WEAR AND TEAR AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION (THIRD DEPT))/WATER DAMAGE (INSURANCE LAW, WEAR AND TEAR, WATER DAMAGE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, WAS DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM WEAR AND TEAR AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION (THIRD DEPT))/EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE LAW, WEAR AND TEAR, WATER DAMAGE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, WAS DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM WEAR AND TEAR AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION (THIRD DEPT))

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, addressing many substantive issues not summarized here, determined the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner’s rulings approving two development projects in the Catskills were proper. The DEC and the permit applicant were in agreement. Only the petitioners (apparently an alliance of affected property owners) were requesting further review, including a request for the adjudication of “substantive and significant” issues (which was denied). The court explained the criteria for further adjudication in this context:

Where, as here, there is no dispute between DEC staff and the permit applicant, adjudication is required only if the issue is “both substantive and significant” … . “An issue is substantive if there is sufficient doubt about the applicant’s ability to meet statutory or regulatory criteria applicable to the project, such that a reasonable person would require further inquiry” … . “An issue is significant if it has the potential to result in the denial of a permit, a major modification to the proposed project or the imposition of significant permit conditions in addition to those proposed in the draft permit” … . “The resolution of whether an issue is substantive and significant requiring an adjudicatory hearing is left to the Commissioner and will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is predicated upon an error of law, is arbitrary or capricious, or represents an abuse of discretion” … . Further, where “‘the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency’s expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference'” … . Matter of Catskill Heritage Alliance, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 02516, Third Dept 4-12-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))/ADJUDICATION, REQUEST FOR (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) (AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, addressing many substantive issues not summarized here, determined the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner’s rulings approving two development projects in the Catskills were proper. The DEC and the permit applicant were in agreement. Only the petitioners (apparently an alliance of affected property owners) were requesting further review, including a request for the adjudication of “substantive and significant” issues (which was denied). The court explained the criteria for further adjudication in this context:

Where, as here, there is no dispute between DEC staff and the permit applicant, adjudication is required only if the issue is “both substantive and significant” … . “An issue is substantive if there is sufficient doubt about the applicant’s ability to meet statutory or regulatory criteria applicable to the project, such that a reasonable person would require further inquiry” … . “An issue is significant if it has the potential to result in the denial of a permit, a major modification to the proposed project or the imposition of significant permit conditions in addition to those proposed in the draft permit” … . “The resolution of whether an issue is substantive and significant requiring an adjudicatory hearing is left to the Commissioner and will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is predicated upon an error of law, is arbitrary or capricious, or represents an abuse of discretion” … . Further, where “‘the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency’s expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference'” … . Matter of Catskill Heritage Alliance, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 02516, Third Dept 4-12-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))/ADJUDICATION, REQUEST FOR (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) (AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (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