You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that a federal drug conspiracy conviction cannot be used as a predicate felony for a second felony offender adjudication and remitted for resentencing. The defendant had pled guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to probation. When he violated the terms of probation he was sentenced to prison as a second felony offender. The Third Department noted that an illegal sentence issue need not be preserved for appeal by objection:

​

Defendant … contends that his federal drug conspiracy conviction does not qualify as a predicate New York felony and, therefore, it cannot serve as a basis for his second felony drug offender adjudication. Although this claim is being raised for the first time on appeal, we find that the claim “falls within the narrow exception to our preservation rule permitting appellate review when a sentence’s illegality is readily discernible from the . . . record”… . In the special information charging a predicate offense, the People alleged that defendant was previously convicted in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York of conspiracy to distribute marihuana (21 USC §§ 841, 846). However, the Court of Appeals has determined that, “under New York’s ‘strict equivalency’ standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes” … . We therefore vacate the sentence and remit the matter to County Court for resentencing … . People v Sumter, 2018 NY Slip Op 00354, Third Dept 1-18-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PREDICATE FELONY, SENTENCING, FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/PREDICATE FELONY (FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY (PREDICATE FELONY, FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE, (PREDICATE FELONY, FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))

LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s leaving unattended for several minutes a 16-month-old child in a bathtub with four inches of water constituted neglect. The child drowned:

​

In our view, this evidence was more than sufficient to establish a prima facie case of neglect. Fundamentally, a reasonably prudent person would not leave a 16-month-old child unattended in a bathtub filled with four inches of water for any appreciable amount of time … . Through her own statement, respondent estimated that she was absent for 1 to 10 minutes. Doing so was “intrinsically dangerous” and has resulted in a heartbreaking tragedy for this family … . Where, as here, a prima facie case has been established, it became respondent’s obligation to offer “a reasonable and adequate explanation for how the child sustained the injury”… . Respondent opted not to testify and did not call any witnesses. Consequently, we conclude on the record before us that the petition should have been granted. Matter of Leah VV. (Theresa WW.), 2018 NY Slip Op 00201, Third Dept 1-11-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing SUNY Plattsburgh’s dismissal of petitioner-student, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that a new disciplinary hearing was required because the Title IX Coordinator’s (Butterfly Blaise’s) testimony at the hearing reflected a misunderstanding of how consent to sex can be communicated. The facts of the sexual encounter between petitioner and the “reporting individual,” another student, were presented at the hearing by Blaise because, by statute, the reporting individual can decide whether or not to participate in the hearing.  The dissenting justices argued that the petitioner was denied his due process right to cross-examine the reporting individual and the determination should be annulled and expunged.  The majority found that the procedure employed by the college, including notice of the charges, comported with the controlling “Enough is Enough Law” and due process. The decision goes through all the arguments made by petitioner, which are substantive and well worth reading, but which cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the evidence of consent, the court wrote:

​

During the hearing, petitioner asked Blaise to define affirmative consent and she read the statutory definition, including that “consent can be given by words or actions as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in sexual activity.” Petitioner then asked, “So affirmative consent can be implied or referred [sic] from conduct?”, and Blaise responded, “[O]nly if the direct question is: Can I have sex with you? So you must ask directly what it is that you want to do to that person. . . . And the answer affirmatively must be yes.” This explanation was incorrect. The error was compounded when petitioner next inquired whether the consent standard applied to both parties, and Blaise explained that the obligation applied to the person initiating the sexual activity. When petitioner asked, “How do you define initiation?”, Blaise explained “that you initiated sexual intercourse by penetrating her.” This, too, was erroneous for the concepts of consent and initiation pertain to either verbal communication or the conduct between the participants, not simply the physical act of penetration.

Blaise’s mistakes raise a concern with regard to the Board’s determination, which was, simply, that petitioner was responsible for violating the Student Conduct Manual because he “initiated sexual intercourse with another student three different times without establishing affirmative consent.” By this determination, the Board failed to provide the requisite “findings of fact . . . [and] rationale for the decision and the sanction” (Education Law § 6444 [5] [b]). As a consequence of Blaise’s erroneous interpretations, we, like petitioner, are unable to discern whether the Board properly determined that petitioner initiated the sexual activity or even considered whether affirmative consent was given based on the reporting individual’s conduct. Matter of Jacobson v Blaise, 2018 NY Slip Op 00205, Third Dept 1-11-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ( DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ENOUGH IS ENOUGH LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (COLLEGES, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appeal of the SORA risk assessment was not properly before it because County Court never issued the required order:

​

County Court, in a bench decision, adopted the People’s arguments regarding both the override and the assessment of additional points, denied defendant’s request for a downward departure and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. …

​

County Court is statutorily required to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” … . The resulting order “must be in writing”…  and, further, must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable”… . The record before this Court does not reflect that County Court issued a written order or that any such order subsequently was entered and filed. Although County Court indicated that its bench decision would “serve[] as the order of the [c]ourt,” a bench decision is neither a substitute for the required written order nor an appealable paper … . Notably, neither the transcript of the court’s bench decision nor the standard form designating defendant’s risk level classification, the latter of which County Court signed and dated, contains the “so ordered” language required “so as to constitute an appealable order” … . Absent evidence of the required written order, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Scott, 2018 NY Slip Op 00203, Third Dept 1-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO PLEAD TO A LESSER OFFENSE WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR’S PERMISSION, HOWEVER NEITHER A WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the writ of prohibition against a judge for accepting a plea to a lesser offense without the prosecutor’s permission was not warranted because the judge (the respondent) acknowledged the mistake. The court further determined it did not have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus, seeking vacation of the plea and reinstatement of the more serious charge, because the plea had already been entered and the conditional discharge sentence had been commenced:

​

Under CPL 220.10 (3), “the defendant may, with both the permission of the court and the consent of the people, enter a plea of guilty of a lesser included offense.” “Where the record shows that the prosecutor’s consent to a plea is premised on a negotiated sentence and a lesser sentence is later deemed more appropriate, the People should be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent” … . Respondent concedes in his brief that he committed a legal error in accepting Hernandez’s plea to a reduced charge without petitioner’s consent. The question therefore distills to whether a writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus is warranted given that Hernandez’s guilty plea has already been accepted, she was already sentenced by respondent to, among other things, a one-year conditional discharge period and such period expired in November 2017.

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition is only available where a body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction and there is a clear legal right to such relief” … . Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from accepting guilty pleas to reduced charges in the future without his consent. Respondent, however, noted at the sentencing hearing that this was the first time that he had ever reduced a charge without petitioner’s consent and that he did so “under the circumstances of [the] case.” Given that the record does not indicate that respondent has undertaken such similar action in the past or has expressed an intention to do so in the future, and taking into account respondent’s concession that his actions were erroneous, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition … . Matter of Carnright v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 00206, Third Dept 1-11-18

CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s findings that claimant, a construction worker, was employed by an uninsured company (George Villar/Atelier) that failed to appear at the hearing and that the general contractor (Omega) was responsible for payment of the workers’ compensation awards:

​

… [C]laimant testified that he had been hired by Mullady [supervisor working for George Villar/Aletier] and worked at the construction site for about a year before the accident. Claimant explained that he identified Villar as his employer on his claim form because Mullady had informed him during his employment that Villar was the boss. Claimant testified that he witnessed Villar give cash to Mullady in order to pay claimant and others at the job site. Claimant also testified that if he had questions about the work assigned by Mullady or his supervisor, he would ask either of them or Villar, who was occasionally at the work site. According to claimant, Villar told him after the accident that he would pay the medical bills. Claimant was familiar with Villar as he had worked directly for him at various other work sites. With regard to testimony from the Omega representative, he testified that Omega performed construction management services at the construction site and obtained the construction permit for the project listing itself as the general manager. Other than indicating that Omega was paid for its services by Villar, the representative was unable to provide any further information regarding any contractors working at the construction site. Given the uncontroverted testimony of claimant, we find that the Board’s decision that claimant was employed by Atelier is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Joseph v Atelier Consulting LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00218, Third Dept 1-11-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT))

SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S STORE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SKIN CARE COMPANY AND WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS, LATE NOTICE EXCUSED, CLAIMANT FELL ON THE WAY TO THE RESTROOM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that claimant, a skin care specialist and spokesmodel, was an employee of Task Essential, who had a display in a Bloomingdale’s store. Claimant fell on the way to a restroom. The court rejected the argument that claimant was a special employee of Bloomingdale’s and that recovery was precluded by late notice of the injury:

​

Claimant testified that his supervisor, who represented himself as an employee of Task Essential, set his schedule, which varied week to week and included working at two different stores. Claimant further explained that he received training for the position from his Task Essential supervisor and Task Essential informed him of a required dress code. Part of claimant’s job entailed meeting sales goals, he was paid an hourly rate and he would ask permission from a Task Essential supervisor before leaving his post to use the restroom. Claimant explained that, after he fell, a Task Essential supervisor informed him that he could not leave because there was no one to cover the skin care station. According to claimant, his Task Essential supervisor would occasionally spot check him to observe his performance. Matter of Colamaio-Kohl v Task Essential Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00213, Third Dept 1-11-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S STORE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SKIN CARE COMPANY AND WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS, LATE NOTICE EXCUSED, CLAIMANT FELL ON THE WAY TO THE RESTROOM (THIRD DEPT))

,

CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the appeal board, determined claimant was not entitled to the presumption of an employee-employer relationship afforded by Labor Law 511, which specifically applies to the performing arts. Claimant is a “caller” paid to participate in radio call-in shows to promote the shows. The caller need have no artistic skill or talent. Therefore the Labor Law 511 presumption did not apply:

In this case, as there is no dispute that the callers' services did not require artistic or technical skill or talent, we find that the statutory presumption for an employee in the performing arts has not been established. As such, we find that the Board's interpretation of the statute was erroneous and its decision must be reversed. Additionally, we note that only general information about the endeavors of the radio stations — which are not deemed to be the employers of the callers — was provided, which was insufficient to support the Board's finding that such endeavors required an artistic or technical skill or talent to produce. Inasmuch as the Board did not address whether United [the employer] exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant and those similarly situated to establish an employer-employee relationship, we remit the matter for the Board's consideration. Matter of Minefee (United Stas. Radio Networks, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 00210, Third Dept 1-11-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CALLERS, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))/PERFORMING ARTISTS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, CALLERS, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))/CALLERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court's preclusion of plaintiff's (Colucci's) expert evidence and the grant of summary judgment to defendant, determined the failure of plaintiff to meet the deadline for expert disclosure warranted preclusion. Plaintiff had leased business space from defendant and alleged that exposure to sewage and mold at the premises caused health problems. Plaintiff did not disclose her expert, one of her treating physicians (Johanning), until a year after the discovery deadline imposed by Supreme Court. Defendant had timely submitted expert evidence opining there was no causal relationship between plaintiff's exposure to sewage and mold at the leased premises and plaintiff's health problems:

… [T]his Court has interpreted CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) as “requiring disclosure of any medical professional, even a treating physician or nurse, who is expected to give expert testimony” … . Thus, while Johanning was listed in Colucci's responses to defendant's bill of particulars as one of 28 treating physicians or medical providers, and medical treatment records for her were disclosed, this at most indicated to defendant that Johanning might have been called as an expert by plaintiffs; it did not obviate the need for plaintiffs to comply with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and Supreme Court's order by disclosing their intent to rely on him as an expert, as well as the substance of the facts and opinions to which he was expected to testify… . To that end, the expert disclosure statute requires, in relevant part, “reasonable detail [of] the subject matter on which [the] expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions . . . and a summary of the grounds for [the] expert's opinion” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), none of which was timely disclosed to defendant … . Notably, “the burden of providing expert witness disclosure and setting forth the particular details required by the statute lies with the party seeking to utilize the expert; it is not opposing counsel's responsibility to cull through [copious medical records] to ferret out the qualifications of the subject expert, the facts or opinions that will form the basis for his or her testimony at trial and/or the grounds upon which the resulting opinion will be based”… . Moreover, the record supports Supreme Court's conclusions that Johanning's expert affidavit, submitted for the first time in opposition to defendant's motion, offered substantially new medical and scientific theories not reflected in his medical records … . Thus, the court providently precluded Johanning's expert affidavit and testimony. Colucci v Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00211, Third Dept 1-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS  (EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))

,

2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a 2008 letter from the bank's counsel informing defendant she was in default did not expressly accelerate the debt. Therefore the statute of limitations did not begin to run in 2008 and the current proceeding is timely:

“The six-year statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action begins to run from the due date for each unpaid installment unless the debt has been accelerated; once the debt has been accelerated by a demand or commencement of an action, the entire sum becomes due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire mortgage”  … . …

The August 2008 letter advised defendant and Luma that they had violated the terms of the note and mortgage by failing to make monthly payments and that counsel had been retained “to exercise all of [the loan servicer's] rights and remedies at law, and in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to sell the above captioned premises at a public sale.” The letter therefore left all legal and equitable avenues open, did not indicate that immediate payment was demanded and, indeed, went on to state that the debt's validity would not be assumed unless there was an absence of timely written objection to some or all of it. There was, moreover, neither an explicit demand for payment in the letter nor the use of the word “accelerate.” Bank of Am., Natl. Assn. v Luma, 2018 NY Slip Op 00214, Third Dept 1-11-18

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, 2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (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