You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

RECORDED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH INSURER PROTECTED AS A STATEMENT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the audio recording of a conversation between defendant and his insurer was privileged as a statement prepared for litigation. Plaintiff was injured using a log splitter on defendant’s property. Defendant denied owning the log splitter and plaintiff alleged defendant admitted ownership in the statement:

​

The statement was made during a phone conversation between Judy Gavin, the insurer’s claims representative, and defendant five days after the incident. At the start of the conversation, Gavin informed defendant that the conversation was being recorded and taken as part of the normal claims process. Gavin further agreed to provide defendant with a copy of the statement. We have long recognized that “[t]he purpose of liability insurance is the defense and settlement of claims and, once an accident has arisen, there is little or nothing that the insurer or its employees do with respect to accident reports except in preparation for eventual litigation or for a settlement which may avoid litigation” … . As such, an insurer’s file is generally protected by “a conditional immunity . . . as material prepared for litigation” … . This conditional privilege may have to yield to disclosure where the other party demonstrates a substantial need for the material and withholding same would result in undue hardship (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Accident reports prepared with a mixed purpose, however, are not exempt from disclosure … .

Defendant’s burden was to demonstrate that his statement was obtained solely for litigation purposes … . To that end, defendant submitted the affidavit of Dennis Stauffer, who was Gavin’s supervisor at the time of the incident. Stauffer explained that Gavin was no longer employed by the insurer and that she procured the statement in accord with the insurer’s “normal practice in anticipation of future litigation.” In our view, Stauffer’s affidavit, coupled with Gavin’s own characterization of the interview as part of the normal claims process, satisfied defendant’s threshold burden of proof … . There is no dispute that ownership of the log splitter is a key issue, but plaintiffs have other means available to explore this issue, and they have not demonstrated any undue hardship if the statement is withheld. Nor is there any indication that the statement was taken for some purpose other than preparing for litigation. Curci v Foley, 2017 NY Slip Op 03100, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (RECORDED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH INSURER PROTECTED AS A STATEMENT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION)/PRIVILEGE (RECORDED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH INSURER PROTECTED AS A STATEMENT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION)/EVIDENCE (INSURANCE LAW, RECORDED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH INSURER PROTECTED AS A STATEMENT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION)

JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PARTIES’ AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT ONE ISSUE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Third Department expressed concern with the Family Court judge’s refusal to accept the parties’ agreement on nearly all issues, holding a hearing on all issues, and then making a finding which did not reflect the agreement. The matter was remitted for a hearing in front of a different judge:

On January 22, 2015, the date on which the matter was scheduled for a hearing, the parties reported to Family Court that they had resolved all outstanding issues, except for their dispute over a 2½ hour block of time on the Fridays that the father had physical custody of the child. The court responded that, “if we have a trial, everything is opened up and I don’t know what the other issues are.” The mother’s counsel replied, “[W]e’ve agreed to all the other issues.” The father’s counsel then advised that, despite some initial hesitancy as to where the child went to school, “the year ha[d] gone well [and] the child [was] doing well.” The colloquy continued, with Family Court inexplicably cautioning that, if the parties did not fully settle the case, it would consider directing that the child be enrolled in private school — an option neither party proposed or desired, and which the court had characterized as “[o]utrageously expensive.” Counsel for the mother eventually reiterated that they were “prepared to go forward on the trial on th[e] two-hour [pick-up] issue . . ., with everything else being resolved.” The father’s counsel responded, “likewise.” Family Court, however, persisted, stating, “If I’m going to sit here and we’re gonna (sic) hear testimony, I want to hear it all.” After a brief recess, counsel informed the court that the pick-up issue remained in dispute. The court stated, “We’re trying it on the whole issue of where is this child going to school and whether or not there were violations of the order of custody.” A hearing on all matters then ensued at the insistence of Family Court.

Family Court abused its discretion by not accepting the parties’ resolution to continue the child’s enrollment in the mother’s school district when there was no evidence that such agreement was not in the child’s best interests. At the time, the attorney for the child supported the parties’ proposed agreement. Moreover, the court’s concern that the mother violated the prior joint custody order by enrolling the child in the kindergarten program, without first informing the father, was unwarranted. No such violation was asserted by the father, and the mother endeavored to explain several times, without contradiction, that since the child had attended the pre-kindergarten program in her school district, the district continued the child’s enrollment in the kindergarten program. For these reasons, a new judge must be assigned upon remittal. Matter of Woodrow v Arnold, 2017 NY Slip Op 03081, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

 

FAMILY LAW (JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PARTIES’ AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT ONE ISSUE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/JUDGES (FAMILY LAW, JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PARTIES’ AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT ONE ISSUE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO A WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED ANNULMENT.

The Third Department annulled the determination because the hearing officer did not inquire into the reason for an inmate witness’s refusal to testify:

​

… [P]etitioner] asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to make any inquiry into the reason that an inmate, who had initially agreed to testify, later changed his mind. The record discloses that this inmate told petitioner’s assistant that he would testify at the hearing, but subsequently refused. Although the inmate did not execute a witness refusal form, he signed a written statement indicating that he did not want to testify out of fear of retaliation. At the hearing, petitioner expressed his desire to have this inmate testify because he was housed in a location where he may have witnessed the incidents in question, and he requested that the Hearing Officer ascertain whether the inmate’s refusal was legitimate. The Hearing Officer did not conduct any further inquiry, and ultimately denied the inmate as a witness.

​

The Court of Appeals recently held in Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci (28 NY3d 54, 60 [2016]) that where “a refusing inmate witness claims that he or she was coerced into refusing to testify at the hearing . . ., the hearing officer has an obligation to undertake a meaningful inquiry into the allegation.” Here, as in Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci (supra), the Hearing Officer did not make any inquiry of the inmate regarding his fear of retaliation, which was clearly a form of coercion. Rather, the Hearing Officer proceeded to deny petitioner’s request for this witness as redundant ,,, . In the circumstances presented, the subsequent denial does not excuse the Hearing Officer’s failure to make a further inquiry into the inmate’s refusal. Matter of Kalwasinski v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 03092, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO A WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED ANNULMENT)

,

COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN.

The Third Department noted that it was improper for County Court to require defendant to waive his right to appeal because there was no agreement associated with his guilty plea:

… [I]it was improper for County Court to require defendant to waive his right to appeal, as the record establishes that “there was no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration given to . . . defendant in exchange for his plea” … . As such, defendant’s challenge to the sentence is not precluded. People v Tarver, 2017 NY Slip Op 03079, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN)

,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled a judgment based upon a note with was not negotiable but which was enforceable as a contract. Although the note did not specify when the money was to be paid back, payback in a reasonable time could be implied:

​

Defendant asserts that the note was unenforceable as a matter of law. Although the note did not constitute a negotiable instrument, it may still be enforceable under traditional principles of contract law … . As Supreme Court found, the note “memorialize[d] a debt between the parties and by signing same . . . defendant has acknowledged that debt and his obligation to pay same.” And, while the note stated that the money was to be repaid at a time “[t]o be agreed upon” by the parties, “[w]hen a contract does not specify time of performance, the law implies a reasonable time” … ; here, plaintiff testified that there was an expectation that he would be repaid within two years. Shlang v Inbar, 2017 NY Slip Op 03107, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR  (ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES)/NOTES (ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES)

TIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTE IS NOT A DEFAULT DENIAL WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

The Third Department determined a 2-2 tie vote by the zoning board of appeals on a special use permit was not a default denial because the board was exercising its original, not appellate, jurisdiction. Therefore a subsequent 3-2 vote in favor of the permit (after a new member was appointed) was valid:

​

Supreme Court accurately set forth the 2002 legislative amendments to Town Law § 267-a, aptly observed the impact of those amendments in relation to Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington (97 NY2d 86 [2001]) and correctly determined that a tie vote of a zoning board of appeals only results in a default denial when, among other things, it is exercising its appellate jurisdiction … . Inasmuch as it is undisputed that the ZBA was exercising its original jurisdiction here … , we agree with Supreme Court that the September 2014 tie vote did not result in a default denial. Matter of Alper Rest. Inc. v Town of Copake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 02871, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

ZONING (TIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTE IS NOT A DEFAULT DENIAL WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING IT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (TIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTE IS NOT A DEFAULT DENIAL WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING IT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

,

CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.

The Third Department determined defendant contractor owed a duty to plaintiff crane operator over and above any obligation running from a contract between them. The court further found there was a question of fact whether defendant was negligent in finding and setting up a staging area for the crane (the crane sank and fell into the pond):

​

In a case such as this one where the parties’ relationship stems from a contract, a “duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … . “In determining the scope of duty, courts examine, among other factors, whether the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated” … . Whether a duty exists in the first instance is a question of law for the courts … .

Here, neither the price quote nor the work order — the documents embodying the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant — contained terms regarding site safety or the placement of cranes at the site. The record nonetheless reveals that Daniel Morin, defendant’s president, scouted an area by the pond where the dredging would take place in order to construct a “staging area” that was to be used for daily activities and access for construction equipment. Southern Tier Crane Servs., Inc. v Dakksco Pipeline Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02859, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM)/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM)

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200).

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether defendant intended to reside in the two-family home plaintiff was working on (thereby triggering the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law liability) and whether defendant created a dangerous condition by providing a ladder that was too short. Therefore defendant’s motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action were properly denied:

​

“Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 each ‘impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities . . .[,] the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work'”… . The exemption stems from the legislative determination “that the typical homeowner is no better situated than the hired worker to furnish appropriate safety devices and to procure suitable insurance protection”… . The exemption does not “encompass homeowners who use their one or two-family premises entirely and solely for commercial purposes”… . In this regard, “renovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose” … . The relevant inquiry is “‘the homeowners’ intentions at the time of the injury underlying the action'” … .

Despite defendant’s submissions indicating that he intended to use the house, at least in part, as his own residence, defendant also submitted the deposition of plaintiff, who testified that defendant had told him that he planned to rent both halves of the two-family home. Thus, defendant’s submissions, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, failed to meet his prima facie burden of establishing his entitlement to the homeowner’s exemption … . …

​

Where, as here, the injured worker contends that the underlying “accident arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but rather from an allegedly dangerous condition at the work site, liability for a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence will be imposed if the property owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it, and failed to remedy the condition within a reasonable amount of time”…  . According to plaintiff’s deposition testimony, defendant created the dangerous condition that caused his fall and failed to remedy it despite plaintiff’s complaints. More specifically, and according to plaintiff, defendant supplied plaintiff with a ladder that was too short for the fascia project that defendant had asked him to complete and, despite plaintiff voicing his concerns about the ladder, defendant told plaintiff that the project needed to be completed before plaintiff left that day. Plaintiff further testified that defendant thereafter held the same ladder that plaintiff had indicated was too short while plaintiff climbed it and then reached to attempt the fascia work before falling. Vogler v Perrault, 2017 NY Slip Op 02857, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200))/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200))

PETITIONER LACKED STANDING TO CONTEST BAN ON FRACKING.

The Third Department determined petitioner lacked standing to challenge the statewide ban on fracking:

​

In 2010, then Governor David Paterson issued an executive order prohibiting respondent Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter DEC) from issuing permits for the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing (hereinafter HVHF) for the stimulation of oil and gas wells pending the completion of a supplemental generic environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8). That order was extended by Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2011 and remained in effect when petitioner, in December 2014, first wrote to respondent Commissioner of Environmental Conservation seeking permission to conduct HVHF on his properties in Allegany and Monroe Counties. …

​

We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the statewide prohibition on HVHF. “Standing is a threshold determination, resting in part on policy considerations, that a person should be allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of a particular dispute that satisfies the other justiciability criteria” … . In order to have standing in a land use matter, petitioner must demonstrate, among other things, that he “would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … .

At the time of commencement of this proceeding, petitioner had not applied for a permit nor offered any proof that he met any of the requirements to obtain a permit. He offered no proof of any plans to move forward with the process and conceded that any plans would necessarily involve commitments by oil and gas exploration companies, of which he had none. Petitioner’s standing at the time of filing was no different than that of any landowner in the state; thus he lacked standing to challenge the determination … . Matter of Morabito v Martens, 2017 NY Slip Op 02863, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONER LACKED STANDING TO CONTEST BAN ON FRACKING)/FRACKING (PETITIONER LACKED STANDING TO CONTEST BAN ON FRACKING)

,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL.

The Third Department determined County Count did not have the authority to amend a defective conspiracy count by allowing the People to add an overt act. The court entertained the issue even though it was not preserved and it was not raised on appeal. The Third Department had made the same ruling in the codefendant’s (Placido’s) appeal:

​

In connection with Placido’s appeal, this Court has held that count 2 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective and that County Court lacked the authority to grant the People’s motion to amend that count … ). In light of the fact that count 2 of the indictment was identical in respect to Placido and defendant, it necessarily follows that this Court’s holding in People v Placido … applies with equal force to defendant. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not raise this issue before County Court and does not raise it on appeal, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse defendant’s conviction for conspiracy in the fourth degree. People v Deleon, 2017 NY Slip Op 02848, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/INDICTMENTS (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)

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