You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DETERMINATION DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA WHERE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS TO BE BUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REZONING ORDINANCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “negative declaration” did not adequately take into account the historic/archaeological significance of the site where the apartment complex was to be built, and failed to include a necessary “consulting party.” The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination was annulled and the rezoning ordinance was vacated:

In our view, respondent’s characterization of the archaeological impact as “moderate” unduly minimizes the historic/archaeological significance of the project site. We also find it significant that respondent’s coordination plan … excludes the Stockbridge-Munsee Community as a consulting party, notwithstanding EDP’s [Environmental Design Partnership] report including the Stockbridge-Munsee Community as a key participant. By letter dated May 3, 2022, just three days before respondent adopted the negative declaration, a representative from the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office wrote to respondent “to state the Tribe’s strong[ ] disagreement” with the proposed negative declaration resolution. … [T]he representative explained that “our office concluded there would be serious and irrevocable impacts to [i]ndigenous cultural resources including a significant site known to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.” He further commented that “[f]or thousands of years the site was used for the extraction of resources for lithic tool making and camping along the [r]iver.” In 2021, a Stockbridge-Munsee Community Tribal Historic Preservation Officer submitted a statement to respondent explaining that the parcel “has high archaeological sensitivity and cultural significance for the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Nation. . . . The recorded Chert Quarries Precontact Site represents immense cultural and educational significance. For thousands of years this area was used for the extraction of resources for Mohican people.” Matter of Bennett v Troy City Council, 2024 NY Slip Op 05257, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Here the failure to take into account the historical/archaeological (“indigenous cultural”) significance of the land and the failure to include a Native American group as a consulting party warranted the annulment of the SEQRA determination (“negative declaration”) and vacation of the rezoning ordinance.

 

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFSET THE SLU AWARD FOR CLAIMANT’S ARM INJURY BASED ON A PRIOR SLU AWARD FOR INJURY TO THE SAME ARM; THE TWO INJURIES WERE NOT RELATED (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was entitled to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for injury to his arm, despite a prior SLU award for injury to the same arm. The injuries involved different pathologies:

​”Pursuant to Matter of Genduso [v New York City Dept. of Educ. (164 AD3d 1509 [3d Dept 2018])] and its progeny, the Board may offset an SLU award by previous SLU awards for the same body member, regardless of whether the prior injuries involved the same or separate parts of that member” … . However, the Court of Appeals has held that an offset of an SLU award by previous SLU awards for the same body member “is not required when the claimant demonstrates that a subsequent injury increased the loss of use of [the] body member beyond that resulting from the prior injury” (Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 38 NY3d at 444 …). Such demonstration may include medical evidence that a prior injury and the current injury to the same member are “separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use of [the subject member]” … and that the current injury resulted in a greater degree of loss of use of the body member in question “beyond that . . . [of] the prior injury” … . * * *

… [C]laimant’s physician clearly stated that claimant had “received a scheduled loss of use of 27% for the right shoulder,” and, in his July 2021 report, claimant’s physician opined that the surgery he had performed for claimant’s 2015 shoulder injury was “unrelated” to the 2019 biceps injury. Claimant’s physician made it clear that the 33.33% SLU that he found claimant had sustained for the biceps injury was separate from, and in addition to, the prior shoulder injury. Thus, in accordance with the holding in Matter of Johnson, the SLU attributable to the prior shoulder injury should not have been deducted from the SLU attributable solely to the biceps injury, and we find that the Board’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Germano v Dynamic Appliances, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05259, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: A claimant is eligible for more than one SLU award for injuries to the same body part if the injuries are not related and involve different pathologies.

 

, , ,

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WHERE FINAL JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; HERE THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO THE FAPA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied retroactively to render the foreclosure action untimely because the debt had been accelerated by a prior foreclosure proceeding in 2008. The Third Department determined the retroactive application of the FAPA to foreclosure actions where final judgment has not been rendered did not violate plaintiff’s due process rights:

In drafting FAPA, the Senate and Assembly sponsors both expressed an urgent need to correct judicial interpretation with unintended consequences which allowed noteholders to unilaterally “manipulate statutes of limitations to their advantage” and to the detriment of homeowners … . … [W]e find that FAPA should be applied retroactively to effect its beneficial purpose … . * * *

… [W]e find that retroactive application of FAPA to foreclosure actions where a final judgment has not been enforced does not violate plaintiff’s due process rights … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Lynch, 2024 NY Slip Op 05261, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Where there has been no final judgment, retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) to render a foreclosure action untimely does not violate a plaintiff’s due process rights.

 

, ,

AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed:

In the course of the investigators’ questioning of defendant, they transitioned away from asking defendant about his flight from the police and turned to the underlying domestic violence incident. When they began focusing on how he had first encountered the victim earlier that morning, defendant expressed that he did not wish to discuss that subject. After the investigators continued with a couple of follow-up questions on this topic, defendant stated, “that’s what I want a lawyer for.” He then went on to say that he was scared to talk and noted that he could still cooperate with the District Attorney at a later time.

… [We conclude that defendant clearly invoked his right to counsel. Although the first two alleged invocations … did not constitute requests for an attorney, they nevertheless serve to indicate that the subject of obtaining a lawyer was on defendant’s mind while he was being questioned. … [O]nce the interrogation moved to the underlying incident, defendant “articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney” … . Accordingly, any statements made by defendant thereafter should have been suppressed … . People v Lipka, 2024 NY Slip Op 05153, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statements “that’s what I want a lawyer for,” he was “scared to talk,” and he “could still cooperate later” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel. Statements made thereafter should have been suppressed.

 

,

THE DELAY IN PRODUCING THE DEFENDANT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AFTER THE PEOPLE BECAME AWARE HE WAS IN CUSTODY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE (A “CONTRADICTORY HOLDING” BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WAS NOTED); DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People were not timely ready for trial and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for dismissal on “speedy trial” grounds:

… [T]he People became aware that defendant was in the custody of DOCCS at the May 13, 2019 appearance, and they requested to have the arraignment adjourned to “May 28th, as soon as we can get [defendant] from downstate.” Yet, the record reflects that the People engaged in no efforts to have defendant produced until May 29, when they filed their application pursuant to CPL 560.10, and we reject their generic assertion that this constituted diligent and reasonable efforts … . The People could not proceed to trial without having first arraigned defendant and because the delay was caused by the People’s own inaction, the 16 days from May 13 through May 29 are chargeable to the People, thus exceeding the seven days remaining on the speedy trial clock. As such, we conclude that the People were not ready for trial within the applicable six-month statutory period … .

Having concluded that defense counsel failed to make a meritorious speedy trial motion, we must determine whether this failure, alone, was so egregious and prejudicial as to amount to ineffective assistance … . We reject the People’s contention that this speedy trial motion involved the resolution of various novel and complex issues … , as it has long been settled in this Department that CPL 560.10 (1) (a) imposes upon the People a “responsibility to petition the trial court for an order producing defendant for ‘arraignment or prosecution’ ” … — a principle which is not diminished by the Fourth Department’s contradictory holding in People v Taylor (57 AD3d at 1518-1519 …). As such, and noting that the timeline underlying the speedy trial analysis is uncontroverted, we find that defendant was denied meaningful representation due to defense counsel’s failure to pursue a meritorious speedy trial motion and, thus, his motion to vacate should have been granted … .. Lastly, as the time to prosecute defendant under this indictment has expired, the indictment must be dismissed. People v Shuler, 2024 NY Slip Op 05154, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: In the Third Department [but apparently not in the Fourth Department (People v Taylor (57 AD3d at 1518-1519)?] any delay in producing a defendant for arraignment after the People become aware the defendant is in custody is attributable to the People.

Practice Point: Defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds is ineffective assistance.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INTOXICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defendant’s request for the intoxication jury instruction was reversible error:

… County Court improperly refused to instruct the jury as to the defense of intoxication. “An intoxication charge is warranted if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … . The charge should be given when there is “evidence of the recent use of intoxicants of such nature or quantity to support the inference that their ingestion was sufficient to affect defendant’s ability to form the necessary criminal intent” … . It is true that more is required than “a bare assertion by a defendant that he was intoxicated,” but the threshold to demonstrate entitlement to the charge is nevertheless “relatively low” … . We find that the evidence presented at trial regarding defendant’s consumption of alcohol during the afternoon and evening on the date in question easily surpassed this low bar. People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 05158, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant’s consumption of alcohol was more than sufficient to warrant instructing the jury on the intoxication defense.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction was reversible error:

As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Boone (30 NY3d 521 [2017]), “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification” … . Here, at the close of proof, defendant requested that the jury be given a cross-racial identification instruction pursuant to Boone. County Court denied his request noting, among other things, that in the present case, the identifying witness … knew defendant. County Court, however, misinterpreted the Boone standard and erred in denying defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction upon defendant’s request for same … . People v Alexander, 2024 NY Slip Op 05160, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Where the witness who identifies the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant appear to be of different races, defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction must be granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department reversed defendant’s “attempted criminal possession of a weapon” and “falsifying business records” convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, when attempting to purchase a shotgun, answered “no” to the question whether he was subject to a court order. Although restraining orders were produced by the People, there was no proof any restraining order “was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” as required by 18 USC 922 (g) (8) (an element of the charged offenses):

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted to buy a shotgun knowing his possession of same was “prohibited by law” (Penal Law § 265.17 [1]). People v Rock, 2024 NY Slip Op 05162, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR WAS NOT SO WRONGFUL OR PERVASIVE AS TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the verdict based on the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel should have been denied because (1) no motion for a mistrial was made before the verdict, and (2) counsel’s behavior was not so wrongful and pervasive as to justify setting aside the verdict in the interest of justice. Allegedly, plaintiff’s daughter was raped by defendants’ son, in defendants’ house, during a sleep over. It was alleged defendants were aware of the danger posed by their son:

Although some of counsel’s comments may have been objectionable, because defendants did not move for a mistrial their “argument respecting these remarks [was] not preserved” … . Nor, in our opinion, have defendants shown this to be “the rare case in which the misconduct of counsel for the prevailing party was so wrongful and pervasive as to constitute a fundamental error and a gross injustice warranting the exercise of the trial court’s discretionary power under CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a verdict in the interest of justice” … . Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ posttrial motion to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice. Lisa I. v Manikas, 2024 NY Slip Op 05164, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: To address objectionable courtroom behavior of opposing counsel, a motion for a mistrial should be made before the verdict.

Practice Point: A post-verdict motion to set aside the verdict based upon opposing counsel’s courtroom behavior should not be granted absent “misconduct so wrongful and pervasive as to constitute a fundamental error and a gross injustice.”

 

,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S (DOH’S) UPDATED GUIDELINES WHICH PROHIBIT PHYSCIANS WHO TREAT CANCER PATIENTS FROM DISPENSING MEDICATIONS WHICH ADDRESS THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CANCER TREATMENTS ARE “IRRATIONAL” (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the NYS Department of Health’s (DOH’s) definition of “oncological protocol” was irrational. The petitioner provides physician-care to cancer patients, including Medicaid recipients. Physicians who provide care to cancer patients can dispense medications (72-hour supplies) pursuant to the DOH’s “oncological protocol.” In the past, petitioner was dispensing medications which addressed the side effects of cancer treatments, including nausea, pain, vitamins, antibiotics and antipsychotics. Under the 2021 update to the DOH’s guidelines, the oncological protocol no longer covered medications which address the side effects of cancer treatments. That update was deemed “irrational” by the Third Department:

The record before us is replete with evidence of industry guidelines and authoritative medical literature strongly suggesting that respondents’ definition may inhibit the provision of adequate healthcare to oncology patients. This includes evidence of the need for ancillary or concomitant administration of medications presumably excluded from the definition in order to enhance the effects of cancer treatments and/or prevent fatal complications arising therefrom. That evidence also clearly contemplates supportive care medications being administered as part of cancer treatment regimens in order to address the often debilitating side effects of such treatment. Given the complete absence of any medical basis for the line drawn here, and guided by the Legislature’s intent to ensure that its general prohibition against prescriber-dispensing did not unreasonably impede the provision of adequate healthcare services in the context of oncology, we cannot find that the definition of oncological protocol before us is rational. Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 05165, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here the Third Department deemed the Department of Health’s guideline which prohibited physicians who treat cancer patients from dispensing medications which address the side effects of cancer treatments “irrational” and therefore unenforceable.

 

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