You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child’s testimony alleged sexual abuse by father was not corroborated:

​

A child’s mere repetition of an accusation to others, “however consistent and believable, is not sufficient to corroborate [his or her] prior out-of-court statements”… . “The corroboration requirement is not demanding and may be satisfied by any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child’s previous statements” … . Nevertheless, “there is a threshold of reliability that the evidence must meet”… . Here, relative to the allegations that the father had sexual contact with the daughter, that threshold was not met.

This Court has found corroboration of a child’s out-of-court statements pertaining to sexual abuse in such evidence as medical indications of abuse … , expert validation testimony … , cross-corroboration by another child’s similar statements … , marked changes in a child’s behavior … , and sexual behavior or knowledge beyond a child’s years … . No such evidence was presented here. Instead, the undisputed testimony of all of the witnesses described the daughter as a social, highly verbal child with no medical evidence of abuse, no significant behavioral alterations, and no indications of inappropriate sexual knowledge or behavior. Matter of Lee-Ann W. (James U.), 2017 NY Slip Op 04920, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (EVIDENCE, SEXUAL ABUSE, CORROBORATION, CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED)/SEXUAL ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, CORROBORATION OF CHILD’S TESTIMONY,  CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, SEXUAL ABUSE, CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED)/CORROBORATION (FAMILY LAW, SEXUAL ABUSE, CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED)

,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the respondent school district’s unilaterally contracting with an outside party for a prekindergarten program, without first negotiating with the teachers’ union, did not constitute an improper practice:

​

Respondent Lawrence Union Free School District (hereinafter the District) implemented a universal prekindergarten program pursuant to Education Law § 3602-e. Program tasks were first performed by employees working in a collective bargaining unit exclusively represented by petitioner [teachers’ union] but, in 2012, the District unilaterally contracted with an outside eligible agency to staff and operate it. Petitioner filed an improper practice charge with respondent Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB) alleging a violation of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act (… the Taylor Law… ), namely, that the District did not negotiate in good faith about outsourcing the work … . * * *

​

The Legislature … created a “comprehensive package for a school district’s decision to” fashion a prekindergarten program plan and “withdr[e]w that decision from the mandatory bargaining process,” crafting a mechanism for public consultations that included affected collective bargaining units and left little time for traditional collective bargaining… . A school district was empowered by Education Law § 3602-e (5) (d) to contract without interference in implementing a plan crafted after that process … .

​

… “[T]here is no absolute bar to collective bargaining over” the outsourcing of prekindergarten work to an outside agency… and, as we have held, an agreement reached after collective bargaining on the subject is enforceable… . Inasmuch as the clear language of Education Law § 3602-e compels the conclusion that negotiation is not required to begin with, however, PERB was right to determine that the absence of negotiation did not constitute an improper practice under the Taylor Law. This does not preclude petitioner from seeking impact negotiations in the future. Matter of Lawrence Teachers’ Assn., NYSUT, AFT, NEA, AFL-CIO v New York State Pub. Relations Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 04944, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TAYLOR LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TEACHERS’ UNION, TAYLOR LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW))/PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, TAYLOR LAW, TEACHERS’ UNION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW))/TAYLOR LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, TEACHERS’ UNION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW))/IMPROPER PRACTICE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, TEACHERS’ UNION, PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM,  SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW))

, ,

ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF.

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant limited liability company’s (LLC’s) notice of claim could be amended to add an attorney’s signature. The notice of claim was timely filed pro se. The defendant argued that the failure to have the claim filed by an attorney representing the LLC violated CPLR 321 (a) and was a jurisdictional defect. The Third Department disagreed, finding the application of CPLR 321 (a) flexible and the related requirement nonjurisdictional. The court also noted that the claimant’s demand for equitable relief was not incidental to the requested monetary relief and therefore must be dismissed as beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims:

… [D]efendant does not point to any service or filing provision — or any other provision — of the Court of Claims Act that prohibits claimant from pro se representation. Instead, defendant relies on CPLR 321 (a), which provides that, subject to express exceptions, a “corporation or voluntary association shall appear by attorney” to “prosecute or defend a civil action,” and “like a corporation or a voluntary association, [an] LLC may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York” … . Thus, as an initial matter, we conclude that compliance with CPLR 321 (a) does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction, as compliance with that provision is not a prerequisite to the waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to the Court of Claims Act … . * * *

… [G]iven the flexibility of the prohibition on corporate pro se representation and the Legislature’s express intent that technical irregularities in filing are subject to correction, absent prejudice and upon just terms … we hold that, under these circumstances, the irregularity of claimant’s initial filing was one that the Court of Claims could have disregarded, given counsel’s subsequent appearance on behalf of claimant, by granting so much of claimant’s motion to amend the claim as added counsel’s signature … . Hamilton Livery Leasing, LLC v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04943, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

COURT OF CLAIMS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, EQUITABLE RELIEF, ATTORNEYS, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, COURT OF CLAIMS,  ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT)/ATTORNEYS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, COURT OF CLAIMS, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/EQUITABLE RELIEF (COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT OF CLAIMS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (COURT OF CLAIMS,  ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT)

NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were not entitled to amend their pleadings to conform to the proof after a nonjury trial in this adverse possession proceeding. Plaintiffs sought adverse possession of portions “paper streets” on both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ (Hart’s) land arguing that any easement had been abandoned and should be extinguished pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1951. The court explained that non-use alone does not constitute abandonment and RPAPL 1951 cannot be used to retroactively extinguish an easement on someone else’s land:

​

Because nonuse, as a matter of law, does not establish intent to abandon, and given that plaintiffs did not allege that the proof showed any other acts that would be cognizable in satisfying the requirement of “unequivocal [acts] . . . clearly demonstrat[ing] the owner[s’] intention to permanently relinquish all rights to [an] easement” … , plaintiffs’ proposed amendment regarding abandonment of any easement is palpably insufficient on its face … . …

​

As the Court of Appeals has made clear, the Legislature intended for RPAPL 1951 (2) to make “available to owners of parcels burdened with outmoded restrictions an economical and efficient means of getting rid of them” … . As the Legislature intended for the provision to allow landowners to seek the extinguishment of restrictions on their property, the provision does not permit plaintiffs to extinguish an easement on Hart’s property. Moreover, the relevant inquiry for RPAPL 1951 focuses on “the time the enforceability of the restriction is brought in question” … . That time frame is a plain indication that any act by a court in extinguishing a restriction would not apply to a time prior to when the enforceability of the restriction was challenged. Therefore, as RPAPL 1951 (2) does not permit plaintiffs to retroactively extinguish an easement on Hart’s property, it is inapplicable to plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim. Ferguson v Hart, 2017 NY Slip Op 04523, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (ADVERSE POSSESSION, EASEMENTS, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)/ADVERSE POSSESSION (EASEMENTS, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)ABANDONMENT (EASEMENTS,  NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)/EXTINGUISHMENT (EASEMENTS, RPAPL 1951, ADVERSE POSSESSION, NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND)

AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a survey submitted to the public by the village concerning the police department was not a prohibited advisory referendum. The survey was deemed to be merely a sampling of public opinion. An advisory referendum, in contrast, requires a vote during an election.  The Third Department noted that the petitioners, residents of the village, had common law taxpayer standing to bring the Article 78/declaratory judgment action because there was no other way to address the issue:

​

… [A] review of the case law dealing with an “advisory referendum” establishes that each such case involves registered voters going to a polling place during a municipal election and casting a ballot on the proposed question … . In light of this, it is our view that the proscription against an “advisory referendum” is limited to a situation where a question that is advisory in nature is placed on the ballot for a vote by the electorate.

Here, in contrast, the Board simply seeks to obtain a sampling of public sentiment regarding police services in the Village before the Board makes a decision to alter current police services. In the event that the Board decides to abolish the police department, such a local law would then be mandated to be placed on the ballot as a proposition to be voted on by the electorate at an upcoming election … . We reject petitioners’ contention that the surveys at issue here will somehow allow the Board to “avoid governmental responsibility and shift the burden of decision [regarding police services] to a public poll” … . Matter of Woodburn v Village of Owego, 2017 NY Slip Op 04513, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM)/SURVEY (MUNICIPAL LAW, AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM)/ADVISORY REFERENDUM (MUNICIPAL LAW, AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM)

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVERSE MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER SHE MAY REMAIN IN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES, IF NOT, FORECLOSURE CAN PROCEED.

The Third Department, over a two justice dissent, determined questions of fact about whether decedent’s wife (defendant) is a “borrower” within the meaning of the reverse mortgage documents precluded summary judgment. If decedent’s wife is a borrower, foreclosure on the mortgage cannot proceed while she resides in the home. If she is not a borrower, foreclosure can proceed upon her husband’s death. The dissent argued that the documents drafted by plaintiff mortgage company were internally inconsistent and the company should therefore be precluded from claiming decedent’s is not a borrower:

Undoubtedly, where there is no extrinsic evidence relevant to an ambiguity in an agreement, “the issue is to be determined as a question of law for the court” … . In contrast, however, “[i]f there is ambiguity in the terminology used . . . and determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then such determination is to be made by the jury”… . This precedent establishes that the rule “that any ambiguity in a document is resolved against its drafter[] is a rule of construction that should be employed only as a last resort”… .

Here, the extrinsic evidence is relevant to the parties’ intentions as to whether defendant is a “[b]orrower” and is also conflicting on that point. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party in regard to the respective motions for summary judgment, the determination of the parties’ intentions depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence — including the credibility of defendant’s claim that the parties to the note and mortgage intended for her to be able to remain in the home in the event of her husband’s death — and the choices between the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the extrinsic evidence. Nationstar Mtge. LLC v Goeke, 2017 NY Slip Op 04521, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

FORECLOSURE (REVERSE MORTGAGE, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVERSE MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF DEFENDANT IS A BORROWER SHE MAY REMAIN IN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES, IF NOT, FORECLOSURE CAN PROCEED)/CONTRACT LAW (REVERSE MORTGAGE, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVERSE MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF DEFENDANT IS A BORROWER SHE MAY REMAIN IN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES, IF NOT, FORECLOSURE CAN PROCEED)/REVERSE MORTGAGE (FORECLOSURE, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DECEDENT’S WIFE IS A BORROWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVERSE MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF DEFENDANT IS A BORROWER SHE MAY REMAIN IN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES, IF NOT, FORECLOSURE CAN PROCEED)

FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, FATHER DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ILL AND, BECAUSE CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO A NON-PARENT IN HIS ABSENCE BASED UPON UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS, HE HAD A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE.

The Third Department determined Family Court should have granted father’s motion to vacate a default judgment in a custody matter. Custody was awarded to a non-parent (aunt) by stipulation at the proceeding father didn’t attend. Father let his attorney know he was ill and his attorney appeared. Father demonstrated he was ill and, because custody was awarded to a non-parent in his absence based on unproven allegations, he had a meritorious defense:

​

With these concerns in mind, we turn to the determination of the father’s motion to vacate the default order. “[A] party who seeks to vacate a default [order] must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to appear and a meritorious defense” … . We find that the father met this burden. The father furnished an affidavit in which he explained that he has suffered from four heart attacks since 2009, with the latest episode requiring hospitalization only five months before the trial date. At the time of the scheduled trial, he was under the care of a cardiologist and was taking four prescribed medications for the condition. On the day prior to the trial, he was experiencing severe chest pains and dizziness. In accordance with his physicians’ advice, he took two doses of nitroglycerine and became disoriented so, that night, the father left a message with his attorney reporting that he would not be able to attend the trial. He averred in his affidavit that he was unable to attend the trial due to this heart condition. Corroborating these representations are copies of medical records from his earlier hospitalization, which confirmed that he suffered from congenital heart disease and underwent open heart surgery as an infant. The records included the diagnoses of cardiomyopathy, high blood pressure and angina, identification of his attending physicians, a listing of his prescribed medications and printouts of his electrocardiograms. We find that Family Court’s rejection of proof that “plausibly supports” the father’s contention that he was ill on the day of the trial was an abuse of discretion … .

Turning to the father’s proffer of a meritorious defense, we note that, “absent surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, disruption of custody over a prolonged period of time or the existence of other extraordinary circumstances,” a parent has a superior claim of custody of his or her children … , and, in a custody case, “[t]he nonparent bears the heavy burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances” … . Family Court accepted the unproven allegations of the petition and the stipulation by the aunt and the mother, none of which provided a factual basis for the custody determination. We also note that, in regard to the best interests of the child analysis, Family Court was not presented with evidence “to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the children’s best interests”… . Mindful that the ultimate issue in this case is the best interests of the children … , and that visitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in their best interests … , we find that the father’s challenges to the amended petition constitute meritorious defenses. Accordingly, these findings lead us to conclude that Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate the default order.  Matter of Hannah MM. v Elizabeth NN., 2017 NY Slip Op 04504, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, DEFAULT, FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, FATHER DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ILL AND, BECAUSE CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO A NON-PARENT IN HIS ABSENCE BASED UPON UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS, HE HAD A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, DEFAULT, FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, FATHER DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ILL AND, BECAUSE CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO A NON-PARENT IN HIS ABSENCE BASED UPON UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS, HE HAD A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE)

,

PETITIONER SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department determined petitioner’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner injured his knee when he stepped into a depression in the school’s parking lot. The delay in filing the notice was due to his not being aware of the nature of the injury until he underwent an MRI months after the incident. Supreme Court deemed the excuse for the delay adequate but held plaintiff did not demonstrate the school district was not prejudiced by the delay. The Third Department found that petitioner’s proof that the defect in the parking lot was essentially unchanged was sufficient to shift the burden to the school district to show prejudice, which it did not do:

​

A finding that respondent “is substantially prejudiced by a late notice of claim cannot be based solely on speculation and inference; rather, a determination of substantial prejudice must be based on evidence in the record” … . “[T]he burden initially rests on the petitioner to show that the late notice will not substantially prejudice the [respondent]. Such a showing need not be extensive, but the petitioner must present some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice” … . Here, petitioner identified the precise location of the incident during his General Municipal Law § 50-h examination by marking a map with a box showing where the bus was parked as he stepped off into the depression, and he represented, through his attorney, that the parking lot defect had not changed since the time of the incident. Photographs of the defect, taken within a month of the incident, were not furnished to Supreme Court, although they had been given to the Workers’ Compensation Board in support of petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim. Respondent, despite being “in the best position to know and demonstrate whether it has been substantially prejudiced” … , offered absolutely no response to this contention, although it was required to rebut it “with particularized evidence” … . We note that Supreme Court’s observation that “[s]now plowing, traffic, weather, or even repairs performed in the interim could have altered the condition” is not based on any evidence in the record and, thus, constitutes the kind of unsupported assertion of prejudice that the Court of Appeals would deem “speculation and inference” … . Thus, the record is devoid of any basis to conclude that the 12-week delay in filing the notice of claim caused substantial prejudice to respondent. Matter of Kranick v Niskayuna Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 04529, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OR A SCHOOL DISTRICT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, reversing the Commissioner (Education) and Supreme Court, determined the Education Law did not allow the Department of Education (DOE) to regulate every aspect of a charter school’s pre-kindergarten program. The relevant statute specifically allows the charter school to oversee its own program:

​

Initially, Education Law § 3602-ee (12) unambiguously provides charter entities with authority in regard to the programming and operations of prekindergarten programs funded pursuant to the statute. It provides, in relevant part, that “charter schools shall be eligible to participate in universal full-day pre[]kindergarten programs under [Education Law § 3602-ee], provided that all such monitoring, programmatic review and operational requirements under [Education Law § 3602-ee] shall be the responsibility of the charter entity and shall be consistent with the requirements under [Education Law article 56]” (Education Law § 3602-ee [12]). In this context, the term “all” could refer to “the whole amount, quantity, or extent of,” or “as much as possible,” or “every” or “any whatever” … . Regardless of the exact word sense of “all” that the Legislature intended, under any applicable plain and obvious meaning of the term, the Legislature’s use of the term “all” tasked the charter entity with full responsibility for the relevant “monitoring, programmatic review and operational requirements” for the relevant prekindergarten programs (Education Law § 3602-ee [12]) … . The plain meaning of the provision in no way indicates that another entity — such as a school district — holds concurrent responsibility or authority in this regard, let alone superior authority. Matter of DeVera v Elia, 2017 NY Slip Op 04522, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)/CHARTER SCHOOLS (EDUCATION LAW, CONTROL OVER PROGRAMS, UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)

,

WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department determined statements made by the defendant at his sentencing, denying involvement in at least one of the relevant offenses, raised questions about whether plea was voluntary and required further inquiry, including whether defendant wished to withdraw his plea:

​

… [W]hile the issue most often arises during the plea allocution… , the Court of Appeals has recognized that a defendant may negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered or make a statement suggestive of an involuntary plea at postplea proceedings, including sentencing, which may require the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea … . …

… [W]hen confronted by County Court with the fact that he had pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, which requires intent to cause serious physical injury to another person … , defendant asserted that it was his deceased friend who “actually did the shooting” and that he “was at the wrong place at the wrong time.” County Court recognized that defendant was denying the intentional assault, but it made no further inquiry. County Court proceeded to sentencing without providing defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. This was error. Although defendant did not preserve his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea by making a motion to withdraw his plea, his statements at sentencing triggered the exception to the preservation requirement … .. While defendant’s remarks did not necessarily implicate all of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, because it was an integrated plea agreement with a promised aggregate sentence, the judgment must be reversed in its entirety … . People v Gresham, 2017 NY Slip Op 04498, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

SENTENCING (DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA, WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL)/CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA,WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL) )/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING, DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA, WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL)

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