You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner property owner had stated causes of action alleging the town's rezoning of the property was arbitrary and capricious and constituted reverse spot zoning. The property had been zoned for resort-type development but, after a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review by the town, the property was rezoned to preclude development. The regulatory taking cause of action was dismissed as not ripe because petitioner had not first sought compensation. The SEQRA review and negative declaration were deemed properly done (requisite hard look taken):

Petitioner asserts, as a result, that the Town Board's decision to rezone the subject property arbitrarily disregarded the comprehensive plan's finding that a planned resort community was appropriate for the subject property. The 2015 report proposed the rezoning in order to address changed conditions in keeping with the spirit of the comprehensive plan, and it is debatable whether petitioner can ultimately “establish[] by competent evidence that the Town Board's decision to . . . change its zoning ordinance as it affects [the subject] property was arbitrary and unreasonable” … . Nevertheless, accepting the allegations in the petition/complaint as true, and noting the absence of documentary proof conclusively establishing a defense to them …, petitioner articulated a cognizable claim.

Petitioner also alleges that the subject property was “arbitrarily singled out for different, less favorable treatment than neighboring properties in a manner that was inconsistent with a well-considered land-use plan” so as to constitute discriminatory reverse spot zoning … . In our view, the … allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable claim for reverse spot zoning … . Matter of Wir Assoc., LLC v Town of Mamakating, 2018 NY Slip Op 00059, Third Dept 1-4-18

ZONING (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/SPOT ZONING (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SEQRA REVIEW PROPERLY DONE (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SEQRA REVIEW PROPERLY DONE (THIRD DEPT))

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the defendants who had contracted with the property owner/manager to remove snow from the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell on ice were not liable to plaintiff under an Espinal exception:

It is well-settled that a party that contracts with a property owner to provide snow and ice removal services cannot be liable to a third party who is injured on the property unless “(1) . . . the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties launche[d] a force or instrument of harm; (2) . . . the plaintiff detrimentally relie[d] on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties; [or] (3) . . . the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002] … ).

… [W]hile [the snow removal contractor] retained some independent authority, we cannot conclude that the agreement “displaced entirely” [the property owner's] duty to maintain the property … . …

[The defendants' meteorologist's] affidavit fails to raise a material question of fact, inasmuch as the evidence demonstrates only that defendants may have failed to clear all of the ice and snow, a fact that does not constitute the affirmative creation of a dangerous condition … . Hutchings v Garrison Lifestyle Pierce Hill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00057, Third Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACT LAW, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))

,

FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the fact that the pro se notice of claim was not verified was properly overlooked by Supreme Court and, although the notice did not explicitly describe a cause of action for malicious prosecution, the allegations were sufficient to put the municipality on notice that a malicious prosecution cause of action was contemplated. Only a mailcious prosecution claim was timely (the false arrest and false imprisonment claims were untimely):

Plaintiff's notice of claim does not specifically refer to the fact that he was charged with harassment in the second degree or to the dismissal of those charges. Nonetheless, plaintiff's assertions that he was falsely arrested without legitimate cause, that no crime took place and that City employees acted maliciously provided sufficient notice to defendants that plaintiff potentially had a claim for malicious prosecution. Although they protect different personal interests and are composed of different elements, claims for “false arrest and malicious prosecution are kindred actions insofar as they often aim to provide recompense for illegal law enforcement activities” … . Causes of action for false arrest and malicious prosecution are related closely enough that, in a trial of both, the court must instruct the jury not to make a duplicate award of damages… . Moreover, actual malice is an element of a cause of action for malicious prosecution, but not of a cause of action for false arrest … . Thus, receipt of a notice of claim alleging that its agents acted maliciously in executing a false arrest when no crime had occurred provided the City with the opportunity to investigate all circumstances related to plaintiff's arrest, including whether he had been arrested pursuant to a warrant — which would have insulated defendants from liability for false arrest … — and whether plaintiff's arrest had resulted in him being charged with, or prosecuted for, a crime. Hone v City of Oneonta, 2018 NY Slip Op 00055, Third Dept 1-4-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))

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))

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