You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent, Widdecombe, was injured in an accident within the meaning of the applicable uninsured motorist policy. Widdecombe was concerned because the driver, Germain, who had been drinking, should not drive. When Widdecombe attempted to take the keys, Germain drove off, dragging and injuring Widdecombe:

… [F]or purposes of an uninsured motorist endorsement, when an occurrence is — from the insured's perspective — “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen,” it qualifies as an “accident”… .  … “[T]he intentional assault of an innocent insured is an accident within the meaning of his or her own policy” … .

… [W]hatever Germain's intent and criminal liability, this incident was an accident from Widdecombe's perspective. Contrary to petitioner's contention, Widdecombe's uncontroverted testimony established that the incident “happened so fast” and, after he attempted to grab the keys, Germain said that “he was going to cut [Widdecombe's] leg off” and, as Widdecombe tried to get his leg out of the car, Germain “threw the car in drive” and “screeched” away, dragging Widdecombe. … [T]his event “was clearly an accident from the insured's point of view,” since having his leg trapped and being dragged was sudden and “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. (Widdecombe), 2018 NY Slip Op 00061, Third Dept 1-4-18

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENT (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))/UNINSURED MOTORIST (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))

,

BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined an state prison inmate's action in Supreme Court against doctors (Lieb and Angell) alleging medical malpractice should not have been dismissed as duplicating an action against the same doctors in the Court of Claims. It was possible the state would not indemnify the doctors who were not employees of the state and plaintiff would be left without recourse. The Supreme Court action should have been stayed, not dismissed:

The legal theory in the Court of Claims action is nearly identical to the Supreme Court action, and it is not disputed that the two actions arise out of the same set of facts. Moreover, Correction Law § 24-a provides that licensed physicians providing contractual medical care at the request of DOCCS are covered by the defense and indemnity provisions in Public Officers Law § 17, as long as the injury was not the result of intentional wrongdoing. As such, it appears that the dismissal of the Supreme Court action would not prejudice plaintiff's right to receive full recovery from all defendants, as intentional wrongdoing is not part of the Supreme Court action and any damages attendant to Lieb's or Angell's malpractice or negligence would be borne by the state in the Court of Claims action.

However, while these defense and indemnity provisions appear to apply to Lieb and Angell, the record is not fully developed at this time to make such a definite determination. Indeed, despite currently defending Angell, the state has neither conceded nor admitted in any of its submissions or pleadings that it is statutorily bound by Correction Law § 24-a and Public Officers Law § 17 (3) (a) to indemnify Lieb and Angell. Rothschild v Braselmann, 2018 NY Slip Op 00054, Third Dept 1-4-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT))

,

THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action on the complaint should have been stayed, not dismissed, based upon the agreement to arbitrate. The Third Department further held that the complaint, augmented by affidavits, stated causes of action and should not have been dismissed:

​

Supreme Court improperly dismissed the action against [defendant], rather than staying the action. Initially, there is no dispute on this record that plaintiff and [defendant], in the settlement agreement, consented to arbitrate any and all disputes regarding, among other things, the subject property. However, under established law, “[a]n agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action” and, thus, “may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss” … . [Defendant’s] cross motion to dismiss based upon CPLR 3211 (a) (1), premised upon the agreement to arbitrate, does not entitle him to dismissal of this action… . Rather, where, as here, there is a valid arbitration clause in an agreement and the party sued … moves to compel arbitration, the court should stay the judicial action rather than dismiss it (see CPLR 7503 [a]…). By statute, the order granting [defendant’s] motion to compel arbitration “operate[s] to stay [the] pending or subsequent action” (CPLR 7503 [a]). …

We further find that Supreme Court improperly dismissed the complaint against the remaining defendants … . Importantly, on the remaining defendants’ pre-answer cross motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court was bound to “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . The court was also authorized to “consider affidavits submitted by plaintiff[] to remedy any defects in the complaint” … . Piller v Tribeca Dev. Group LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 09209, Third Dept 12-28-17

ARBITRATION (THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 7503  (THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the town board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it denied a quarry’s (Troy Sand’s) application for a special use permit allowing the blasting and removal of rock. The court based its ruling on the local law which describes the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. The fact that the town improperly relied on information outside that gathered during the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process did not change the fact that the local law was properly applied and justified the denial:

​

The first special use standard provides that “[t]he location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operations involved, the size of the site in relation to the use and the location of the site with respect to existing or future access shall be in harmony with the orderly development of the district” (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A] [1]). There is ample evidence in the SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] record that the proposed quarry will be a sizable operation, and the final EIS [environmental impact statement] supports the Town Board’s determination that the project would create a highly intensive industrial land use in an area where only one small commercial entity currently exists. …

​

The second special use standard requires that “the nature and intensity of intended [*5]operations shall not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings nor impair the value thereof” (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A] [2]). In finding that this standard was not satisfied, the Town Board relied on, among other things, a property value impact analysis, prepared by an expert whose qualifications have not been challenged.

​

The fourth special use standard requires that “[t]he character and appearance of the proposed use . . . shall be in harmony with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood” (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A] [4]). The Town Board rationally concluded that the proposed project would alter the essential character of the Town and the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of residential lots and undeveloped forest land valued by residents and tourists alike for the tranquility and recreational opportunities that the rural landscape affords. …

“In sum, it was in no way irrational, on this record, to find that petitioners failed to carry their burden of showing that their contemplated use of the subject property conforms with the standards imposed”… . … We recognize that the Town Board relied on environmental information that was outside of the SEQRA record and made factual findings with no basis in the final EIS in evaluating most of the standards it applied…  However, inasmuch as the failure to meet even one applicable standard is a sufficient basis upon which to deny a special use permit application … , we cannot say that the Town Board’s determination was irrational … . Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Fleming, 2017 NY Slip Op 09222, Third Dept 12-28-17

 

ZONING (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BLASTING OPERATION, TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)  (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (ZONING, (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))

OFFICE LEASING BROKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined an office leasing broker was an employee of Kaufman Leasing Company LLC and was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

​

Here, the record establishes that claimant, a licensed real estate salesperson, submitted his resume and was interviewed twice before being hired as an office leasing broker and signing an independent contractor agreement. Kaufman provided claimant and those similarly situated an extensive training program that included assignment of a mentor and instruction by a third-party vendor hired by the Kaufman that took place either at Kaufman’s offices or the vendor’s location. The training included instruction on best practices, basic leasing terminology, how to identify prospects, how to make cold calls and how to negotiate a transaction. Even after claimant successfully completed the training program within the probationary period, the services of the vendor were still available to him. Claimant was paid a draw during the probationary and training period, for which Kaufman did not seek reimbursement. Kaufman also provided claimant and those similarly situated an office with equipment and supplies — including desks, computers, Internet and multiple listing service — where claimant and those similarly situated were expected to report when the office opened at 8:30 a.m. or otherwise inform a supervisor of his or her whereabouts during the day.

In addition, Kaufman issued claimant and those similarly situated a work email address, as well as business cards with the salesperson’s name and Kaufman’s name on them. Pursuant to the signed agreement, Kaufman reimbursed claimant and those similarly situated for certain professional expenses, set the commission rates, reserved the right to request monthly reports, required confidential final transaction reports, provided health insurance at Kaufman’s expense, prohibited the performance of similar services outside the company and required that the services be performed to the best of the salesperson’s abilities in a timely and productive manner. Matter of Slater (Kaufman Leasing Co. LLC–Commissioner. of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 09218, Third Dept 12-28-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (OFFICE LEASING BROKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

EASEMENT WHICH ALLOWED ACCESS TO A GARAGE AND WOODSHED WAS EXTINGUISHED, GARAGE AND WOODSHED NO LONGER EXISTED AND HAD NOT EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined an easement which originally allowed access to a garage and woodshed had been extinguished because the garage and woodshed longer existed, and had not existed for some 50 years:

​

An easement appurtenant, such as the one at issue on this appeal, is created through a written conveyance, subscribed by the grantors, that burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate … . An easement expressly created for, or limited to, a specific purpose may be extinguished by the abandonment of that purpose … , which must be demonstrated through “unequivocal” acts establishing that the owner of the dominant estate intended to “permanently relinquish all rights to the easement” … . In determining the nature and extent of an express easement, the easement must be construed “to give effect to the [conveyors’] intent, as manifested by the language of the grant” … . Stone v Donlon, 2017 NY Slip Op 09225, Third Dept 12-28-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (EASEMENTS, EASEMENT WHICH ALLOWED ACCESS TO A GARAGE AND WOODSHED WAS EXTINGUISHED, GARAGE AND WOODSHED NO LONGER EXISTED AND HAD NOT EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS (THIRD DEPT))/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT APPURTENANT WHICH ALLOWED ACCESS TO A GARAGE AND WOODSHED WAS EXTINGUISHED, GARAGE AND WOODSHED NO LONGER EXISTED AND HAD NOT EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS (THIRD DEPT))/EASEMENT APPURTENANT (EASEMENT APPURTENANT WHICH ALLOWED ACCESS TO A GARAGE AND WOODSHED WAS EXTINGUISHED, GARAGE AND WOODSHED NO LONGER EXISTED AND HAD NOT EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS (THIRD DEPT))

,

ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the juvenile delinquency petition, determined the juvenile’s admission to endangering the welfare of a child did not meet the criteria required by the Family Court Act:

​

Family Court “shall not consent to the entry of an admission unless it advises the respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and, further, ascertains through allocution of the respondent and his or her parent that the respondent committed the acts underlying the admission, is voluntarily waiving a fact-finding hearing and is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders” … . Even though Family Court partially complied with Family Ct Act § 321.3, we agree with respondent that the allocution was insufficient overall … .

At the hearing, Family Court merely asked respondent whether he “engaged in conduct that was likely to pose a risk of injury to a child.” Although Family Court specified the date and the location of the alleged crime, the court did not mention any other specific underlying fact forming the basis of the alleged crime… .. As such, Family Court did not “elicit a sufficient factual basis to support respondent’s admission” … . Furthermore, while Family Court advised respondent of his right to a hearing and his right to remain silent, the record does not indicate that respondent was advised of his right to present witnesses on his behalf, his right to confront witnesses and that the presentment agency had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the alleged act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime … . Nor do we find that merely asking respondent’s mother as to whether respondent’s admission to the charge of endangering the welfare of the child was done with her approval constituted a sufficient allocution of respondent’s parent as required by Family Ct § 321.3 (1) … . Matter of Kameron Vv., 2017 NY Slip Op 09215, Third Dept 12-28-17

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (FAMILY LAW, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY LAW, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMISSION (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY LAW, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALLOCUTION (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY LAW,  ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

MOTHER, ALTHOUGH A FIT AND LOVING PARENT, WAS PROPERLY STRIPPED OF LEGAL CUSTODY, DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined mother was properly stripped of joint legal custody:

​

The evidence reveals the parties’ inability to communicate effectively regarding the child. Notwithstanding their numerous discussions, occurring both in court and out of court, the mother continued to undermine the father and to act contrary to his express wishes. The mother testified that she “knew [the father] was not in agreement” with allowing the child’s continued contact with the boy and that she did not make a “joint decision[].” Nonetheless, she unilaterally decided to permit the child to have physical contact with the boy, and to attend the church where he served as her youth leader and his baseball game. She further acknowledged that a message that she had sent to the father “threaten[ed] to file court papers if he didn’t allow [the child] to do what she wanted on his time.” In sum, although the parties are able to communicate, there is scant evidence that the mother is willing to accept or act upon that communication; instead, after speaking with the father, she disregards his requests and opinion regarding essential parenting issues, and fails to acknowledge that it is important to do so.

Upon this record, a sound and substantial basis supports the determination awarding the parents equal shared physical custody and the father sole legal custody, while directing him to “solicit and reasonably consider” the mother’s input regarding any major decisions … . Similarly, the record supports Family Court’s finding that the mother willfully violated the 2011 order by her admitted failure to bring the child to visitation and by her discussion of court proceedings with the child, as well as the court’s bench order by permitting the child to have further contact with the boy and returning her cell phone … .

​

From the Dissent:

​

As the majority recognizes, the mother and the father were not on the same page regarding the issue of the child’s relationship with the 15-year-old boy and the extent and manner in which she should be disciplined for her alleged transgressions. Nevertheless, this is not a situation where the parties’ joint decision making has so broken down that joint legal custody is no longer feasible … . Indeed, the record established that, despite their significantly different parenting styles, the parties had been successfully following the previous order, communicating in the best interests of the child for several years and operating “in harmony” under the concept of “[my] house, [my] rules, [your] house, [your] rules” — a concept that was, notably, introduced by the father. Matter of Thompson v Wood, 2017 NY Slip Op 09219, Third Dept 12-28-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, MOTHER, ALTHOUGH A FIT AND LOVING PARENT, WAS PROPERLY STRIPPED OF LEGAL CUSTODY, DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, LEGAL CUSTODY, MOTHER, ALTHOUGH A FIT AND LOVING PARENT, WAS PROPERLY STRIPPED OF LEGAL CUSTODY, DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT))/LEGAL CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW,  MOTHER, ALTHOUGH A FIT AND LOVING PARENT, WAS PROPERLY STRIPPED OF LEGAL CUSTODY, DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT))

,

PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a prior burglary should not have been allowed as Molineux and Sandoval evidence in this robbery prosecution. The error was deemed harmless however:

​

“The Molineux rule requires that evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts or crimes be excluded unless it is probative of a material issue other than criminal propensity and its probative value outweighs the risk of prejudice to the defendant”… . Although defendant’s intent was at issue, given his defense that he was an innocent bystander who had no knowledge that the codefendants planned to rob [the victim] when he drove them to her residence, the prior conviction was of limited probative value with respect to defendant’s intent because the prior conviction arose from an incident that was not similar to the charged conduct. The prior burglary did not involve a robbery, but, rather, arose from an incident during which defendant entered the residence of another with the intent to assault an occupant. Moreover, [a co-defendant’s] testimony, if believed, was sufficient to permit the jury to find that defendant had the requisite intent to the commit burglary and robbery. Accordingly, the evidence that defendant had committed a prior burglary would serve only to demonstrate that defendant had a propensity to commit burglary and, therefore, the court should have determined that the prior conviction was inadmissible as proof of defendant’s intent … .

County Court also erred in its Sandoval ruling. Although the crime was not too remote to be relevant and the nature of the conviction was probative of defendant’s credibility, allowing the prior crime to be identified as burglary improperly suggested that defendant had a propensity to commit one of the crimes with which he was charged … . People v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 09196, Third Dept 12-28-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/SANDOVAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))

IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the concept of a design-build “turnkey” project, noting that the property owner is generally not a third-party beneficiary of the contracts entered into by the entity in charge of the design-build “turnkey” project (here RBG):

​

It is undisputed that neither plaintiff entered into a contract with RZA nor RDI. Rather, RBG entered into contracts with each of those entities, as would be expected in a turnkey project. “In turnkey or design-build construction projects, an owner contracts with one entity to both design and build the project and the turnkey builder is responsible for every phase of the construction from final design through subcontracting, construction, finishing, and testing. The design-builder generally cannot shift liability and is the single point of responsibility under a design-build contract, because” the design-builder is responsible for all phases of construction, including “the responsibility for holding the contracts with its trade contractors” … .

​

Generally, a party may not assert a cause of action for breach of contract against a person or entity with whom it is not in privity … . Without a contractual relationship and the resulting privity, plaintiffs could proceed against RZA or RDI only if plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of RBG’s contract with those entities or had the functional equivalent of privity… .”[O]rdinarily, construction contracts are not construed as conferring third-party beneficiary enforcement rights” … . Luckow v RBG Design-Build, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 09221, Third Dept 12-28-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN-BUILD, TURNKEY, IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN-BUILD, TURNKEY, IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACT LAW, DESIGN-BUILD, TURNKEY, IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT))/DESIGN-BUILD (CONTRACT LAW, CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN-BUILD, TURNKEY, IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (THIRD DEPT))/TURNKEY PROJECT (CONTRACT LAW, CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN-BUILD, TURNKEY, IN A DESIGN-BUILD TURNKEY PROJECT, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE TURNKEY BUILDER IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT (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