You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF ELECTION BALLOTS MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a two-justice dissent, determined electronic images of election ballots are accessible under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) after they have been preserved in accordance with the Election Law:

The dispute before us poses a question of public significance: whether electronic images of ballots cast in an election are accessible under the Freedom of Information Law … . We conclude that, once electronic ballot images have been preserved in accordance with the procedures set forth in Election Law § 3-222 (1), there is no statutory impediment to disclosure and they may be obtained through a FOIL request.

Our analysis is informed by the advent of electronic voting in New York (see generally Election Law § 7-202 [4]). As more fully set forth in the record, upon inserting a ballot into an electronic voting machine, it is scanned and an image of it is stored in a random fashion on portable flash drives, which preserve the secrecy of the ballot. The original ballot is then deposited by the scanner into a secure ballot box under the machine. After the polls close, the machine prints out a tabulated results tape containing the official record of votes cast on that particular machine. One of the flash drives is removed from the machine and returned to the applicable board of elections, while the other remains with the machine and is used during the recanvass process. As is relevant here, the content on the portable flash drives is then copied to permanent electronic storage media, such as a hard drive, after which the temporary storage media may be reused in another election … . Matter of Kosmider v Whitney, 2018 NY Slip Op 02517, Third Dept 4-12-18

​ELECTION LAW (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), ELECTRONIC VOTING, ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF ELECTION BALLOTS MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (THIRD DEPT))/FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (ELECTION LAW, ELECTRONIC VOTING, ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF ELECTION BALLOTS MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (THIRD DEPT))/ELECTRONIC VOTING (ELECTION LAW, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF ELECTION BALLOTS MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (THIRD DEPT))//BALLOTS (ELECTION LAW, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF ELECTION BALLOTS MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (THIRD DEPT))

,

REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly denied a DNA-related Frye hearing based on a Frye hearing held in another case, even though that case is on appeal. The hearing was requested concerning a computer program (TrueAllele) which calculates the probability a defendant’s DNA is in a mixture that could not otherwise be definitively tied to the defendant. The original code for the computer program, called the source code, could have been requested by the defendant for a pre-trial analysis by a defense expert. The defense never requested the source code but attempted to have the TrueAllele expert provide the source code during cross-examination. The argument that cross-examination was impeded because the source code was not made available to the defense at trial was rejected. Only an expert could analyze it and there had been no timely request for it by the defense:

…DNA analysis did not definitively tie defendant to the genetic material recovered from the pistol. The People accordingly sought to present proof of a re-analysis conducted with the TrueAllele Casework System (hereinafter TrueAllele), a computer program that subjects a DNA mixture to statistical modeling techniques to infer what DNA profiles contributed to the mixture and calculate the probability that DNA from a known individual contributed to it. Defendant argued that the TrueAllele evidence should be precluded or that the general acceptance of the technique in the scientific community should be assessed via a Frye hearing. Supreme Court denied the application due to the fact that an extensive Frye hearing had been conducted on the issue in another criminal case in the same county and that a determination, issued weeks before the trial in this matter, was rendered finding that the procedure was not novel and was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community … . People v Fields, 2018 NY Slip Op 02503, Third Dept 4-12-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DNA, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (DNA, CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/TRUEALLELE (DNA, CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ (Schwengbers’) motion for summary judgment in this prescriptive easement case should not have been granted. The action concerned a shared driveway and a question of fact was raised whether plaintiffs’ use of the driveway was “hostile:”

“A party claiming a prescriptive easement must show . . . that the use of the easement was open, notorious, hostile and continuous for a period of 10 years” … . Hostility is the only element contested here. Once the other elements of a prescriptive easement are established, “hostility is generally presumed, thus shifting the burden to the defendant to demonstrate that the use was permissive” … . However, permission can be inferred when “the relationship between the parties is one of neighborly cooperation and accommodation,” in which case no presumption of hostility will arise … . Moreover, “where permission can be implied from the beginning, no adverse use may arise until the owner of the servient tenement is made aware of the assertion of a hostile right” … . “Generally, the question of implied permission is one for the factfinder to resolve” … . …

… Schwengber … made assertions regarding her cordial and cooperative relationship — specifically relative to the driveway — with her neighbors who owned defendant’s parcel from 1974 to 2011. These assertions could be read to infer that plaintiffs had implied permission to use the driveway. Inasmuch as Schwengber’s affidavit contained assertions that supported inferences of both hostility and permissive use, plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on their summary judgment motion. Even if plaintiffs had met their burden, defendant submitted evidence indicating that his immediate predecessor-in-interest had an amicable and neighborly arrangement with plaintiffs. Schwengber v Hultenius, 2018 NY Slip Op 02379, Third Dept 4-5-18

​REAL PROPERTY LAW (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EASEMENTS (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS (QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/HOSTILITY (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE HOSTILITY ELEMENT OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Macy’s defendants did not eliminate all triable issues of fact concerning whether Macy’s sold the plaintiff’s skirt which caught fire from a heater. Although plaintiff could not identify the store where the skirt was purchased, Macy’s could not rely on the gaps in plaintiff’s proof as the basis for summary judgment. There was testimony from a buyer which indicated the skirt could have been purchased at a Macy’s store:

The Macy defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they did not sell the skirt at issue … . The Macy defendants correctly note that neither plaintiff nor her mother could identify the specific store from which the skirt was purchased. Merely pointing to gaps in plaintiff’s proof, however, does not suffice for the Macy defendants to meet their threshold burden … .

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that the skirt had an “Angie” label on it. Although a product director employed by the Macy defendants, who was previously a buyer, testified that she purchased Angie-labeled skirts from Star of India and that the Macy defendants sold skirts that were purchased from Star of India, her testimony was equivocal as to whether the type of skirt at issue was ever sold by the Macy defendants. In view of the foregoing evidence, the Macy defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they sold the skirt and, therefore, their motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the [other] defendants’ opposition … . Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02382, Third Dept 4-5-18

​PRODUCTS LIABILITY (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to discover the reports of other accidents involving defendant bus driver. Plaintiff’s children were injured after getting off the bus. Both the driver (Morin) and his employer (CDTA) were sued. Although the bill of particulars mentioned negligent hiring and retention, the complaint did not. Therefore there were no grounds for the discovery of the reports of prior accidents:

The allegations of negligence set forth in the complaint, as they relate to Morin and CDTA, pertain solely to Morin’s operation of the bus on the day of the incident … . Specifically, the complaint alleges that, after discharging the infant passengers, Morin “negligently remained in that position for a considerable period of time, causing the bus to obstruct the path of travel for other vehicles in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law[].” It further alleges that Morin was “negligent, careless and reckless” in failing to illuminate his hazard lights or any other signal to alert drivers of the presence of the bus during that time. Critically absent from the complaint is any allegation of direct negligence on the part of CDTA. Thus, the complaint “gives not the slightest indication of a theory of liability of negligent supervision[, hiring or retention]”… . Although plaintiff alleged a theory of negligent hiring and retention in his bill of particulars, “[i]t is well settled that a bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . [, and it] may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . Schonbrun v DeLuke, 2018 NY Slip Op 02386, Third Dept 4-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/BUSES (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BUSES, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/DISCOVERY (ACCIDENT REPORTS, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION (ACCIDENT REPORTS, DISCOVERY , ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town’s Site Plan Review Law was a valid substitute for zoning ordinances and explained the difference. The court also explained the meaning of a “comprehensive plan” in this context. In the underlying action the petitioners contested certain conditions placed upon the storage and sale of firewood imposed by the town planning board and argued that the planning board did not have the authority, under the Site Plan Review Law, to impose the conditions:

The primary goal of a zoning ordinance must be to provide for the development of a balanced, cohesive community which will make efficient use of the town’s available land” … . In contrast, site plan review reflects “public interest in environmental and aesthetic considerations, the need to increase the attractiveness of commercial and industrial areas in order to invite economic investment, and the traditional impulse for controls that might preserve the character and value of neighboring residential areas” … . Site plan review furthers those ends by “permit[ting] municipalities to regulate the development and improvement of individual parcels in a manner not covered under the usual provisions of building and zoning codes which establish specific standards for construction of buildings, provide for specific limitations on use, and fix definite numerical criteria for density, building set backs and frontage and height requirements” … .

There is no statutory directive that a municipality employ both zoning and site plan review as mechanisms of land-use control. …

The trial court … relied upon the absence of zoning or other land use policies to determine that the Site Plan Review Law ran afoul of the requirement that “[a]ll town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan” … . A comprehensive plan “need not be contained in a single document; indeed, it need not be written at all”… . Rather, “[t]he court may satisfy itself that the municipality has a [comprehensive] plan and that authorities are acting in the public interest to further it by examining all available and relevant evidence of the municipality’s land use policies” … . Matter of Bovee v Town of Hadley Planning Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 02387, Third Dept 4-5-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (LAND USE, TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/LAND USE ( TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LAND USE, OWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/ZONING (TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (LAND USE, TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MUNICIPAL LAW, LAND USE, TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court (which had affirmed Town Court), determined that the tenant-respondent’s defenses in this eviction proceeding should have been considered:

“When a landlord-tenant relationship exists, the landlord may maintain a special proceeding to remove a tenant if, as relevant here, ‘[t]he tenant continues in possession of any portion of the premises after the expiration of his [or her] term'” … . The tenant is free, however, to raise “any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim” in answering the allegations in the petition … .

In that regard, respondent asserted a defense of retaliatory eviction, which includes the scenario wherein a landlord terminates a tenancy “to punish the tenant for complaining to government authorities and then . . . brings a holdover proceeding to evict the tenant” … . Respondent made “[a] good faith complaint . . . to a governmental authority of the landlord’s violation of any health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance” within the six months prior to the commencement of this proceeding … . …

​Town Court further failed to grapple with the defenses of constructive eviction and breach of the implied warranty of habitability raised by respondent. County Court correctly observed that these defenses cannot forestall an eviction in a holdover proceeding, but overlooked that they are viable “defense[s] to the recovery of rent” in such proceeding ,,, , Matter of Kirkview Assoc. LP v Amrock, 2018 NY Slip Op 02389, Third Dept 4-5-18

​LANDLORD-TENANT (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/EVICTION (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/RETALIATORY EVICTION (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/HABITABILITY, WARRANTY OF (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (EVICTION,  (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (EVICTION,  (RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court after a trial, determined plaintiff did not prove he had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he complaint should have been dismissed for lack of standing. Because defendant raised the issue of standing as an affirmative defense in his answer, plaintiff had to prove his standing to maintain this foreclosure action in order to be entitled to relief… . To establish standing, plaintiff was required “to demonstrate that, at the time that the action was commenced, [he] was the holder or assignee of the mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note”… . As the issue of standing was resolved following a nonjury trial, we will “independently review the probative weight of the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, and grant the judgment warranted by the record” … . …

“Holder status is established where the plaintiff possesses a note that, on its face or by allonge, contains an indorsement in blank or bears a special indorsement payable to the order of the plaintiff”… . While there was testimony that plaintiff possessed the original note at the time of trial in 2015, there was no proof that he was in possession of the original note when he commenced this foreclosure action five years earlier. Even if he was, the note — which was payable to Trustees Capital — was neither indorsed in blank nor specially indorsed to him. Consequently, plaintiff’s physical possession of the note could not render him the lawful holder thereof for purposes of enforcing it … . McCormack v Maloney, 2018 NY Slip Op 02385, Third Dept 4-5-18

​FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (FORECLOSURE, (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))

INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not err in finding IBM stock to be the wife’s separate property in this divorce proceeding, The facts that income from the stock was reported on joint tax returns and was used for marital expenses did not convert the stock to marital property:

… [T]he mere reporting of income earned from the separate assets of one spouse on a joint return does not transmute the separate property to marital property because both spouses are required to report all of their income, whatever the source, on a joint return … . … [A]contrary rule “would force married persons to file separate income tax returns, and to pay higher income taxes, simply to protect the non-marital status of their separate property” … . Here, the wife’s assertion that the IBM stock was her separate property was not contrary to any position that she had taken by reporting income derived from her IBM stock on the parties’ joint income tax returns as dividends and capital gains … .

It is also well-settled that the use of funds withdrawn from an account that is separate property to pay marital expenses does not change the character of the account to marital property … . Thus, the use of dividends earned on the wife’s IBM stock to pay marital expenses was insufficient to transform the stock to marital property. Similarly, the pledge of the IBM stock as collateral for the loan used to acquire several parcels of real property located in Florida did not transmute all or any portion of the stock to separate property. This conclusion is illustrated by the fact that a spouse who contributes separate property toward the purchase of a marital asset, or whose separate property is used to pay a marital debt that was incurred to acquire a marital asset, is entitled to a credit for the separate property contribution … . Giannuzzi v Kearney, 2018 NY Slip Op 02378, Third Dept 4-5-18

​FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE, SEPARATE PROPERTY, INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/DIVORCE (SEPARATE PROPERTY, INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/MARITAL PROPERTY (DIVORCE, INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/SEPARATE PROPERTY (DIVORCE, INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/STOCK (DIVORCE, INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW  (DIVORCE, SEPARATE PROPERTY, INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the jury should have been instructed that a witness, Dozier, was an accomplice as a matter of law and his testimony therefore required corroboration:

… “[T]o be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial”… .

Here, Dozier’s unimpeached testimony established that he was at the second-floor apartment on the day in question to purchase crack cocaine … . He was arrested and charged, along with defendant and the remaining codefendants, with crimes stemming from his presence in the apartment on that date and thereafter pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in exchange for his truthful testimony against defendant. Because Dozier “could have been (and was) charged with a crime ‘based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct’ upon which the charges against defendant were based,” he was an accomplice as a matter of law … . County Court was therefore required to instruct the jury that Dozier was an accomplice as a matter of law and that defendant could not be convicted on Dozier’s testimony absent corroborative evidence (seeCPL 60.22 [1]). “Failure to so charge the jury was necessarily harmful error,” given that the case against defendant rested substantially — if not exclusively — upon the testimony of Dozier … . People v Pettus, 2018 NY Slip Op 02366, Third Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE REVERSAL, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/INTEREST OF JUSTICE (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/ACCOMPLICES (CRIMINAL LAW,  FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS, (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/CORROBORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (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