You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery first degree charge (no evidence of threat with a dangerous instrument) and the trial court should have conducted an inquiry into defense counsel’s request to withdraw:

Indisputably, the “gun” was plastic and did not work, and there was no evidence that it could potentially harm someone… . Similarly, while there was testimony that one of the men entering the motel room was holding the tire checker, there was no evidence that any individual brandished the tire checker in a threatening manner… . … [T]here is no question that one of the individuals possessed a dangerous instrument. What was missing was any evidence that there was any verbal threat of immediate use of the instrument or that it was “employ[ed]” in any way … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. County Court’s determination focused on the inconveniences that would result if counsel were substituted and the trial were delayed one month, as well as defendant’s propensity to complain. But it was trial counsel, not defendant, complaining that the relationship had broken down, and the request was not made on the eve of trial. While we are not suggesting that a request made by counsel warrants heightened inquiry, “a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel” may constitute good cause for substitution… , and there was no inquiry here to assess the gravity of counsel’s concerns in this regard. The motion raised specific examples to support trial counsel’s claim that there was “an irretrievable breakdown” in the relationship with defendant. As such, the court should have first questioned both defendant and trial counsel about “the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” prior to denying the motion … . Absent such a “minimal inquiry,” we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction … . People v Matthews, 2018 NY Slip Op 01499, Second Dept 3-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ATTORNEYS, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/ROBBERY (DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ROBBERY, DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (ROBBERY, NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/WITHDRAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed (modified) Supreme Court’s dismissal of products liability complaint against the distributor (At Last Sportswear) and seller (Walmart) of plaintiff’s clothing which caught fire. The court also determined the Enerco defendants (the manufacturer, designer, and distributor of the heater which ignited the clothes) were aggrieved by the order, based upon joint liability principles, and therefore could appeal it:

Although liability can be apportioned between any tortfeasors, whether they are codefendants or nonparties, if an alleged tortfeasor was a codefendant whom the court had dismissed from the case, the law of the case doctrine would preclude the remaining defendants from introducing at trial any evidence regarding the same type of defect or error by that alleged tortfeasor that was previously litigated … . Thus, the Enerco defendants were entitled to challenge motions by any codefendants seeking to be released from the action, they were aggrieved by any orders granting dismissal and they could, therefore, appeal any such orders. …

[At Last’s and Walmart’s] expert opined that the dress materials complied with and exceeded the requirements of the Federal Flammable Fabrics Act (15 USC § 1191 et seq. [hereinafter FFA]) and accompanying regulations (16 CFR part 1610) for general wearing apparel, as well as the industry standard, that the dress was reasonably safe and suitable for its intended use, that it was not defective in any manner and that this type of 100% cotton dress was a standard commodity.  …

… [T]he Enerco defendants submitted an affidavit from their own expert, who opined that the FFA standards are insufficient to determine whether a garment is safe because it addresses only some factors affecting flammability of the fabric but not the design of the garment itself … . He supported his opinion with literature in which industry professionals addressed the inadequacy of the FFA standards to protect consumers. These competing expert opinions present a triable issue of fact regarding whether a design defect exists … . …

The parties’ experts disagreed as to whether labels warning about the dress’s flammability and the need to be cautious around heat sources were appropriate for such general wearing apparel and existed in the United States market for this type of garment. Thus, factual issues remain regarding whether At Last Sportswear and the Wal-Mart defendants breached a duty to warn. Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01368, Third Dept 3-1-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOINT TORTFEASORS, (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (JOINT TORTFEASORS, (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/JOINT TORTFEASORS (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was injured and the defendant owner of the property did not supervise or control the manner of plaintiff’s work, requiring dismissal of the Labor Law 200 cause of action as well. The plaintiff worked for a car crushing busing and was standing on a crushed car on a trailer when he was knocked into the air by a piece of heavy equipment:

… [E]ven if we were to agree with plaintiff that the open trailer was a structure as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1), the record provides us with no basis to conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged was a protected activity or, as relevant here, that plaintiff was altering or erecting a structure. …

“When an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from [a] contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Lopez v 6071 Enters., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01372, Third Dept 3-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the court erred in awarding custody to the father without an evidentiary hearing. Mother had repeatedly promised to return with the children from New Mexico but did not. Although Family Court was justifiably irked by the mother’s behavior, a custody hearing was still required:

We do … agree with the mother that Family Court erred in granting the father’s custody petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. “[C]ustody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry”… . A court’s final custody determination must be based on admissible evidence and not on, as relevant here, “information provided at court appearances by persons not under oath”… .

The record reveals that Family Court’s ultimate custody and visitation determination was made only after a few preliminary court appearances in which no witness gave sworn testimony or documentary evidence was received, and there is no indication that Family Court considered the various factors relative to the best interests of the children. While Family Court was justifiably irked at the mother’s actions in frustrating the purpose of the court’s prior orders, such actions, although certainly relevant, are not solely dispositive in this case on the issues of custody and visitation … . Because Family Court “did not possess sufficient information to render an informed determination that was consistent with the children’s best interests”… , the matter must be remitted for a full evidentiary hearing on the father’s custody petition. Matter of Richard T. v Victoria U., 2018 NY Slip Op 01364, Third Dept 3-1-18

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction, noted the difference between a “legal sufficiency” analysis and a “weight of the evidence” analysis on appeal, and reiterated that criminally negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense within depraved indifference murder. Here the two-year old victim was subjected to severed physical abuse over a period of days or longer:

Defendant argues that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. A legal sufficiency challenge requires us to “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether ‘there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged'” … . A legally sufficient verdict may, however, be against the weight of the evidence … . The latter review requires us to assess whether acquittal was a reasonable possibility and, if so, to weigh “the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” in deciding whether the verdict was justified … . * * *

Criminally negligent homicide demands that a person act “with criminal negligence” and, in doing so, “causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). Inasmuch as criminal negligence involves a person failing “to perceive [the] substantial and unjustifiable risk” of the result set forth by the statute (Penal Law § 15.05 [4]), a person does not commit criminally negligent homicide unless he or she fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death …  In contrast, Penal Law § 125.25 (4) demands that an adult person, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, . . . recklessly engage[] in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than [11] years old” and that ends in the other person’s death (emphasis added).

The definition of serious physical injury encompasses injuries that do not create a substantial risk of death or cause death, such as those that cause “serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]). As we have previously held, it is therefore theoretically possible to commit depraved indifference murder of a child by “engag[ing] in conduct that creates and disregards a grave risk of serious physical injury, causing death, without . . . engaging in conduct that creates . . . a substantial risk of death, causing death” … . People v Stahli, 2018 NY Slip Op 01359, Third Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))

,

FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, annulled the former Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s determination that a road within the Adirondack Park had been abandoned and therefore could not be used by snowmobilers. The determination reversed an earlier determination that the road had not been abandoned. The second determination was made pursuant to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) motion to clarify. The Third Department held that, although titled a motion to clarify, the motion was actually a motion to reconsider, the criteria for which were not met:

The motion was, in effect, one to reconsider the 2009 determination. Yet, no statutory authority exists for DEC to reconsider a final determination issued in an administrative enforcement proceeding. … While the regulations governing enforcement proceedings allow a Commissioner to reopen the hearing record to consider “significant new evidence,” the Commissioner may only do so “prior to issuing the final [determination]” … .

“In the absence of any statutory [or regulatory] reservation of discretionary agency authority to reconsider its determinations, New York applies a long-standing policy of finality to the . . . determinations of an administrative agency” … . “Public officers or agents who exercise judgment and discretion in the performance of their duties may not revoke their [quasi-judicial] determinations nor review their own orders once properly and finally made, however much they may have erred in judgment on the facts, even though injustice is the result” … . This is not to say, of course, that an administrative body may never reconsider a previously issued final determination. Under settled law, a final agency determination may be corrected if it suffers from an error that “was the result of illegality, irregularity in vital matters, or fraud”… . Likewise, an agency has the inherent authority to reconsider a prior determination to “correct its erroneous interpretations of the law” … , or upon a showing of new information or changed circumstances … .

In our view, [the former Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s] actions here ran afoul of the principle of finality attached to administrative determinations. Matter of Town of N. Elba v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 01369, Third Dept 3-1-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/ADIRONDACK PARK ( FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (ADIRONDACK PARK,  FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/FINALITY, POLICY OF (ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was not restricted to a Worker’s Compensation Law remedy in this pedestrian-car accident case. Both plaintiff and defendant were employed by the Culinary Institute of America (CIA). The accident occurred on a private CIA road as defendant was leaving work. The Third Department determined the accident was not related to defendant’s work:

The parties’ submissions reveal that the accident occurred on Campus Drive, which plaintiff described as a ring road encircling the campus — a description consistent with the campus map submitted by defendant. Defendant essentially maintains that because Campus Drive is a private road maintained by the CIA, he necessarily was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident took place. There is support for the premise that going to or from work while on the employer’s premises is considered an incident of the employment … . By comparison, accidents occurring on a public street outside working hours are generally not considered to arise out of the employment absent some nexus between the access route and the employer’s premises… .

Even accepting that Campus Drive is a private road, the submissions demonstrate that the CIA encourages the public to frequent the restaurants on campus and it opened up Campus Drive for general use by the public. There is nothing in this record indicating that the accident was precipitated by any special hazard or incident related to defendant’s employment. To the contrary, the accident allegedly occurred when defendant slowed down but did not stop as plaintiff was in the crosswalk. Such an accident is a common risk shared by the general public traveling on Campus Drive… . We conclude that defendant’s workday ended when he left the parking lot to drive home and, thus, as a matter of law, defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Siegel v Garibaldi, 2018 NY Slip Op 01239, Third Dept 2-22-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff (Torgersen) had raised questions of fact whether defendant’s snow removal and salting efforts were sufficient, and whether the lighting in the parking lot was adequate:

Torgersen claimed in an affidavit that his legs kicked out from under him on ice that was covered by snow and obscured by poor lighting. This account did not directly conflict with his prior deposition testimony — in which he gave a similar account of his fall, said the lighting was not “very good” and was cut off while trying to answer the only question posed regarding the presence of ice — and the discrepancies between them “raised a credibility issue” but did not warrant rejecting the affidavit out of hand … . Plaintiffs further provided the affidavit of another tenant who stated that she observed Torgersen fall as he described. The tenant saw a large patch of ice when she came to assist him and asserted, among other things, that no one salted the parking lot when it was plowed that day and that the poor plowing and salting at the complex had been the subject of complaints. The latter allegation ran counter to proof provided by defendant and Larkin [snow removal contractor], but there is no stated reason why the other tenant would misrepresent what had occurred and, in any event, “a court may not assess credibility on a summary judgment motion ‘unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned'” … . It is by no means clear here.

Considering the foregoing “in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the opponents of summary judgment”… , material issues of fact exist regarding the role ice and poor lighting played in Torgersen’s fall and whether the ice was due to inadequate salting by Larkin or defendant’s employees and should “reasonably have [been] discovered and remedied” by defendant … . Torgersen v A&f Black Cr. Realty, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01237, Third Dept 2-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/LIGHTING (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL,QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SNOW REMOVAL (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a decision dealing with several substantive insurance and employment issues not summarized here, determined that plaintiff, as the beneficiary of her husband’s life insurance policy, had sufficiently alleged she was in a relationship close to privity such that the insurance agent (Pontillo) and his employers owed her a duty of care. Plaintiff’s suit stemmed from the insurers’ denial of coverage based upon material misrepresentations in the decedent’s application (not mentioning substance abuse):

Plaintiff was the intended beneficiary of the ReliaStar policy from the moment when decedent applied for the policy. She further alleged that she was linked to Pontillo by his status as a family member and trusted financial advisor and that Pontillo knew not only that the policy was intended to ensure plaintiff’s financial well-being in the event of decedent’s death, but that she would rely upon his expertise in preparing a valid application for it. Accepting these allegations as true, they show “an affirmative assumption of a duty of care to a specific party, [plaintiff,] for a specific purpose, regardless of whether there was a contractual relationship” … . As Supreme Court correctly determined, this alleged “reliance by . . . plaintiff that was ‘the end and aim of the transaction'” … constituted “a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” and created a duty of care toward her that permitted a negligence claim against Pontillo and his purported employers … . Vestal v Pontillo, 2018 NY Slip Op 01236, Third Dept 2-22-18

INSURANCE LAW (ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT))/PRIVITY (INSURANCE LAW, NEGLIGENCE, (ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s presence in a meth lab was not sufficient to demonstrate constructive possession of the contraband in the lab:

A defendant’s mere presence in the same location as contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession … . Knowledge that the contraband is present is insufficient, standing alone, to show constructive possession… . Some factors that courts may consider in determining whether a defendant constructively possessed contraband are the defendant’s proximity to the contraband, whether the defendant had keys to the location where the contraband was found, whether the contraband was in plain view, evidence that the defendant had used some of the drugs (when drugs are the contraband at issue), and whether there is witness testimony that the contraband belonged to the defendant … .

The evidence at trial demonstrated that defendant and [codefendant] Yerian had been in the garage with [codefendant] Alberts for approximately one hour when the officer arrived. There was no evidence that defendant lived in the house or garage, kept any of his personal belongings there or had keys to the property… . When the officer observed defendant in the workshop area, which measured approximately 10 to 12 feet by 20 to 24 feet, defendant was sitting on a stool in front of a bench, not touching anything. No contraband was recovered from defendant himself, nor did the proof establish that he owned or had even touched any of the contraband. People v Maricle, 2018 NY Slip Op 01217, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/METHAMPHETAMINE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (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