You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s evidence of lost earnings was insufficient to support his claim for no-fault benefits. The insurer’s motion for summary judgment should, therefore, have been granted. The dissenters argued that there was enough evidence of lost earnings to raise a question of fact:

… {The potential employer’s and] plaintiff’s subjective beliefs about the financial health of the parts business and/or their subjective beliefs about plaintiff’s skills are immaterial to the resolution of whether it is reasonable to project that the parts business would have employed plaintiff at a salary of $2,000 a week. In contrast, the uncontradicted evidence that the parts business was failing, that it had not made any efforts to acquire or open an automobile repair shop, and that, even if it had, plaintiff had a demonstrated history of being unable to run a profitable automobile repair shop all bear on the reasonableness of such a projection. That material evidence established as a matter of law that the projection that plaintiff would have received $2,000 a week from the parts business is unreasonable … . Freligh v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05911, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, LOST EARNINGS, THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/NO-FAULT BENEFITS (LOST EARNINGS,  THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined a raised fist was sufficient to support the “creating a disturbance” charge, but not the “interference with an employee” charge:

… [A]s to the charge of interfering with an employee, while the evidence establishes that prison staff were alarmed by petitioner’s gesture resulting in additional staff reporting to the mess hall, we agree with petitioner that these facts, standing alone, do not constitute substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner “physically or verbally obstruct[ed] or interfere[d] with an employee,” and, therefore, the determination should be annulled to that extent… . While the normal duties of the prison staff were presumably interrupted or redirected when they responded to the incident in the mess hall, this, in our view, is not the type of conduct that the at-issue rule was designed to prevent … . Matter of Taylor v Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 05903, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT)

ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the contraband-possession charge was supported by sufficient evidence. The petitioner had a small package of a leafy green substance which tested negative for marijuana. The supervisor who seized the substance, after the test had been done, alleged it was synthetic marijuana. Because all of the substance was used up in the marijuana test, no further tests were possible. The dissent argued the proof was insufficient because the supervisor did not describe the nature of his experience which led to his conclusion the substance was contraband:

As for the … charge of possessing contraband, “an inmate shall not possess any item unless it has been specifically authorized” … . Given petitioner’s concessions and the supervisor’s representations in the misbehavior report that his identification was based upon his prior training and experience, we find that the item contained in the tobacco pouch was adequately identified as synthetic marihuana and, therefore, the determination that it was unauthorized contraband is supported by substantial evidence … . * * ​

FROM THE DISSENT:

The supervisor who identified the substance as synthetic marihuana offered no details regarding his training or experience, nor any explanation of how they qualified him to make such an identification. Indeed, he did not testify, so the Hearing Officer was left to rely on a vague and conclusory statement included in a misbehavior report and repeated in a memorandum. Moreover, the quantity of the substance recovered apparently allowed for only one drug test, and the record indicates that the substance was tested to discover whether it was marihuana. If the supervisor actually had the ability to identify synthetic marihuana and had, in fact, so identified the substance taken from petitioner when the supervisor viewed it before the testing was conducted, there is no explanation as to why he would thereafter have his subordinate use the entirety of the substance in a test for marihuana, which would not indicate a positive or a negative result for synthetic marihuana … . Thus, the record contains no evidence that the supervisor was qualified to identify synthetic marihuana, but does contain evidence that leads to an inference that he had, initially, incorrectly identified the substance as marihuana. The Hearing Officer should not have relied on the supervisor’s second guess as to the nature of the substance, supported by nothing other than his own vague and self-serving statement regarding his training and experience. Matter of King v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05899, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (CONTRABAND, ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT)/CONTRABAND (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT)

CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined CPLR 5003-a, which requires the prompt payment of a settlement to the plaintiff, does not apply to payments owed to a third-party, even though the settlement agreement requires that the third party be paid. Here the settlement agreement required defendant to pay a Worker’s Compensation lien:

… [W]e conclude that CPLR 5003-a applies only to the nonpayment of settlement monies owed directly to a settling plaintiff pursuant to a settlement agreement. This construction is not only in accord with the plain language of the prompt payment mandate itself, but is also supported by the language of the statutory enforcement mechanism set forth in subdivision (e). CPLR 5003-a (e), the teeth that effectuate subdivision (a)’s prompt payment directive, authorizes an “unpaid plaintiff” to enter judgment inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements against the nonpaying settling defendant … . Simply put, plaintiff here is not “unpaid” — all sums required to be paid to him pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement (i.e., $3.25 million) were paid by defendant within the statutorily-prescribed 21-day time period. Had the Legislature intended to extend the reach of CPLR 5003-a to a settling defendant’s failure to promptly pay all valuable consideration due a settling plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, it could have easily said so. It did not, and “‘a court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there'” … . Ronkese v Tilcon N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05905, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SETTLEMENTS, CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT)/SETTLEMENTS (CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT)

DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, over a strong dissent, determined the denial of youthful offender status was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant lost both parents, dropped out of school after having been a successful student and admitted to college, became addicted to drugs, and was targeted and victimized by persons who moved into his home. He had never before committed a crime. He pled guilty to seven burglaries which took place in the space of two weeks:

Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. “[T]he decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” … . Upon our review of the record, we are unpersuaded that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application for youthful offender status … . In making its determination, County Court considered numerous mitigating circumstances, including, among other things, defendant’s youth, his lack of a criminal record or prior acts of violence, his cooperation with authorities, his familial history and his expressed remorse for his conduct … .. Nevertheless, based upon the seriousness of the charges for which defendant was convicted and the fact that he willingly participated in seven separate and distinct residential burglaries over a two-week period, we perceive no abuse of discretion in County Court’s ultimate decision to deny defendant youthful offender status … . Nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion that would warrant a reduction of his sentence … . People v Strong, 2017 NY Slip Op 05876, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)

NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the People did not demonstrate the two sexual offenses to which defendant pled guilty occurred at different times, therefore consecutive sentences should not have been imposed. The Third Department explained that only the accusatory instrument to which defendant pled (here a superior court information) and the plea allocution can be considered in this context.  To the extent that a prior ruling suggested admissions in a pre-sentence report and victim statements could be considered to determine the facts of the offenses, that ruling is no longer to be followed:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2), “sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” … . Thus, “to determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a court must first look to the statutory definitions of the crimes at issue to discern whether the actus reus elements overlap” … . “[E]ven if the statutory elements do overlap under either prong of the statute, the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the acts or omissions committed by [the] defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . * * *

… [B]oth counts in the superior court information alleged that the acts occurred during the same time frame (between July 1, 2012 and July 31, 2012), neither count contained allegations about the specific acts constituting the crime, and there is no bill of particulars narrowing the specific type of sexual contact or sexual conduct alleged under either count … . Likewise, the plea allocution did not include admissions or particularity as to the acts committed that qualify as sexual contact or oral sexual conduct … . Given that the term “sexual contact” is broad enough to include all forms of “oral sexual conduct” … , the actus reus element could be the same for both offenses, that is, the same act could satisfy both crimes. As no specific date and time for each crime were alleged in the superior court information or plea allocution, and neither included underlying facts or alleged acts that were separate and distinct, consecutive sentences were not authorized … . People v Mangarillo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05872, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT)/SENTENCING (NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT)

HOMEOWNERS’ REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS VALID 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined petitioners, who had recently purchased the property for $103,000, had rebutted the presumption that the tax assessment of over $156,000 was valid:

Here, petitioners presented the affidavit of the associate real estate broker who had been engaged to sell the subject property, together with their own affidavits describing the underlying transactions. From June 2011 through May 2013, the subject property had been continuously, publicly and widely advertised for sale on a multiple listing service throughout the Capital Region. Flyers were distributed at the broker’s office and during open houses and showings. By May 2012, there had been more than 30 unsuccessful showings of the subject property, which prompted the initial reduction of the sale price to $110,000 in June 2012. Petitioners toured the property with the broker during an open house thereafter, and then met with the broker in May 2013 to execute their purchase offer. Two weeks later, respondents prepared their estimate of the market value of the subject property, which was significantly higher than the purchase price.

Supreme Court held that one can “scarcely envision a better indicator of value than the price established within two weeks of the assessed valuation date in an arm’s[ ]length sale of a property that was publicly listed for sale for a period of two years.” We agree, finding that petitioners’ evidence was certainly adequate to rebut the presumption of validity and also to meet their burden upon the summary judgment motion… . Respondents offered no evidence that suggests or reveals that the arm’s length transaction by which petitioners purchased the subject property was in any manner abnormal. Review of the record reveals that the reduction in the asking price was the natural product of the failure to sell the subject property for a period of two years, and respondents’ assertions to the contrary are mere speculation. Respondents further rely upon the affidavit of a licensed real estate appraiser, who explains that he arrived at the property valuation by using the comparable sales method. However, as this appraiser was unable to inspect the interior or exterior of the subject property, his report merely averaged the sales prices of similar nearby homes; he “was unable to make reliable adjustments to the comparable sales,” as the method requires … . As further adjustments in the valuation might be required, he concluded that “[his] analysis is subject to change.”

Respondents’ submissions thus failed to provide a “fair and realistic value” of the subject property … and were conclusory and speculative, such that they were insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Matter of Weslowski v Assessor of The City of Schenectady, 2017 NY Slip Op 05784, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (HOMEOWNERS’ REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS VALID 3RD DEPT)

ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined the two-year shutdown of electrical power generating facility, which uses Hudson River water to cool machinery and discharges warm water back into the Hudson, was not a permanent shutdown and therefore the operating permits were properly renewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, DEC was not required to hold a public adjudicatory hearing prior to issuing final … permits. It was incumbent upon DEC, after evaluating the permit applications and reviewing all comments submitted in response to them, to “determine whether or not to conduct a public hearing ‘based on whether the evaluation or comments raise substantive and significant issues relating to any findings or determinations [DEC] is required to make . . ., including the reasonable likelihood that [the permits] will be denied or can be granted only with major modifications to the project” … . The ultimate burden rested on petitioner to show that its issues were “substantive and significant” enough to warrant a public hearing … .

In that regard, while petitioner raised a number of concerns regarding the draft … permit, it also acknowledged that the draft permit was largely identical to the existing permit… , one that DEC noted had only been issued after extensive administrative proceedings and an adjudicatory hearing. Moreover, to the extent that the draft … permit modified the terms of the prior permit, those modifications reduced the impact of the station upon the river. The objection to the Title V permit amounted to the rather obvious point that a station in service would create more atmospheric emissions than one offline. DEC issued a written response to petitioner’s comments and, while it did make modifications as a result of the concerns raised, it gave no reason to believe that those concerns might have required extensive retooling of either permit or imperiled their issuance altogether. Accordingly, mindful as we are that our judgment should not be substituted for that of the agency, the determination that petitioner had failed to demonstrate the need for an adjudicatory hearing was not arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2017 NY Slip Op 05778, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT)/HUDSON RIVER (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT)/DISCHARGE, WARM WATER (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT)

,

AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department noted that an agreement to pay commissions is an agreement that can be performed in one year, so an oral agreement to pay commissions is not subject to the statute of frauds:

“An agreement to pay an at-will employee commissions earned during the period of his or her employment is capable of performance within one year and does not violate the [s]tatute of [f]rauds” … . Here, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is not about renewal commissions that accrued after his resignation from WorldClaim … . Rather, plaintiff seeks the payment of commissions that he claims were earned while he was still employed by WorldClaim … . Indeed, the complaint alleged that plaintiff, “[d]uring the period from approximately April 2011 to January 2012, . . . earned $104,525 in commissions from sales, [and] $25,000 in monthly bonuses.” Given that plaintiff was still employed by WorldClaim during this alleged time period, the statute of frauds does not bar plaintiff’s claim for unpaid commissions … . Kieper v The Fusco Group Partners Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05782, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, COMMISSIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMMISSIONS, STATUTE OF FRAUDS,  AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMMISSIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)

,

SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined a law firm was properly disqualified from representing mother because an associate at the firm had previously represented father in a case involving the same child:

We … address whether, due to the associate’s former attorney-client relationship with the father and current employment with the law firm, the principal is also precluded from representing the mother. While the principal has apparently never represented the father, “where an attorney working in a law firm is disqualified from undertaking a subsequent representation opposing a former client, all the attorneys in that firm are likewise precluded from such representation” … . Application of this rule creates a rebuttable presumption that the law firm should be disqualified … . To that end, “[a] court must examine the circumstances of the particular case and, if it is not clear as a matter of law that disqualification of the entire firm is required, the firm should be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption” … . The presumption may be rebutted by proof that “any information acquired by the disqualified lawyer [i.e., the associate] is unlikely to be significant or material in the [subject] litigation” and by evidence that the law firm screened the associate from receipt and dissemination of information subject to the attorney-client privilege … . * * *

We are mindful here that “[d]oubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification”… , and that “disqualification avoids any suggestion of impropriety and preserves [the client’s] expectation of loyalty” … . Under these facts, we are unpersuaded by the principal’s assertion that a sufficient firewall exists to separate his work on behalf of the mother from the associate so as to screen her from the receipt of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege in this small, informal law office environment. As the principal has not rebutted the presumption that all attorneys in his law firm are disqualified from representing the mother, the father’s motion was properly granted, and Family Court’s order will not be disturbed. Matter of Yeomans v Gaska, 2017 NY Slip Op 05786, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD 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