You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER.

The Third Department, after noting that orders issued upon default are not appealable, determined mother, contrary to Family Court’s ruling, was not in default and therefore the order could be appealed:

​

In the circumstances presented, the mother was not required to seek to vacate the default judgment before taking this appeal. A party may not appeal from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511), but a party’s absence does not necessarily constitute a default, “particularly where counsel appears upon the absent party’s behalf and offers an explanation for his or her failure to attend” (… . Here, the mother’s counsel appeared and advised Family Court that he had communicated with the mother several times by phone and email, that she was then at a considerable distance in either Florida or South Carolina, and that she had a limited income. The mother’s counsel further advised the court relative to the mother’s position in the matter and participated in the proceedings by consenting to the requested relief, that is, to permit the child to remain temporarily with the father. Counsel also unsuccessfully requested a continuance, and ultimately advised that he did not have authority to consent to a final order of permanent physical placement to the father. In light of these circumstances, we find that the mother was not in default and that the order is appealable … . Matter of Linger v Linger, 2017 NY Slip Op 03822, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)/APPEALS (FAMILY COURT, DEFAULT, MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)/DEFAULT (FAMILY COURT, MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)

TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Third Department determined the prosecutor should not have elicited testimony from an investigator about defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. The error was deemed harmless however:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony about defendant’s invocation of his right to silence and to comment on that testimony in summation. “[I]t is axiomatic that when a defendant invokes his or her constitutional right against self-incrimination, the People may not use his or her silence against him or her on their direct case”… . The principle applies when a defendant unequivocally states his or her desire to halt all questioning, even if he or she has previously responded to other questions … . A State Police investigator testified at trial that he interviewed defendant after his arrest and read him his Miranda rights, which defendant stated that he understood. Defendant then willingly answered a series of questions about various topics. However, when asked if he had punched or pushed the trooper, defendant responded that “he didn’t want to say any more.” During summation, the prosecutor remarked upon this testimony, noting that when defendant was asked about striking the trooper, he had not denied that he had done so or offered an explanation, but instead had stated that he did not want to say anything else. Defendant’s counsel objected twice to these remarks, but was overruled. Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant’s statement that he did not want to say any more was an “unequivocal and unqualified invocation of [the] right” to remain silent … . People v Johnson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03804, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/SELF-INCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO AVOID (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)

, ,

ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE. 

The Third Department determined defendant’s oral offer to sell to plaintiff her shares in a family corporation (SEI) formed solely to hold one piece of property (Beach Cove) as its single asset was subject to the statute of frauds (and therefore unenforceable). The court further found that certain actions, like opening a bank account, did not amount to part performance sufficient to overcome the writing requirement of the statute of frauds:

​

SEI was a single-asset corporation — that single asset being its ownership of Beach Cove — and, inasmuch as the alleged oral agreement involved the sale of plaintiff’s shares of stock in a corporation whose only asset was an interest in real property, the statute of frauds indeed applied here … . As the alleged oral agreement was not reduced to writing, plaintiff could avoid application of the statute of frauds only if her conduct fell within the part performance exception. In this regard, while the actions upon which plaintiff relies — i.e., opening a bank account in anticipation of a wire transfer of funds from defendant, retrieving her SEI stock certificates to relinquish to defendant, hiring an attorney to coordinate with defendant and/or reduce the alleged oral agreement to writing, timely removing her personal possessions from Beach Cove and promptly vacating the premises in accordance with defendant’s alleged wishes — are consistent with plaintiff’s assertion that she and defendant had a deal to sell plaintiff’s shares in SEI to defendant for $900,000, such actions are not unequivocally referable to — or unintelligible without reference to — the alleged oral agreement, nor so substantial in quality to irremediably alter the situation. Wells v Hodgkins, 2017 NY Slip Op 03824, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CONTRACT LAW (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/REAL PROPERTY (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/CORPORATION LAW  (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)

, , ,

REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION. 

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a report sought by plaintiffs was not part of a medical or quality assurance review function or participation in a medical malpractice prevention program and therefore was not privileged pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m:

​

…[W]we find that defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the report’s privilege. Defendants did not submit an affidavit or other information from anyone with first-hand knowledge establishing that a review procedure was in place or that the report was obtained or maintained in accordance with any such review procedure … . Nevertheless, defendants argue that the face and content of the report clearly establish that it is a quality assurance review which is precluded from disclosure. Yet, nothing in the report reflects that the hospital’s Department of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement ever reviewed it … . Further, the report’s conclusory statement that it was prepared for quality assurance purposes and was shielded by the subject statutes is patently insufficient to satisfy the required standard … .

In short, the purpose of the Education Law and Public Health Law discovery exclusions is to encourage a candid peer review of physicians, and thereby improve the quality of medical care and prevent malpractice… , but such protections are not automatically available and do not prevent full disclosure where it should otherwise be provided … . Estate of Savage v Kredentser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03825, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/PRIVILEGE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this dog bite case. The proof did not demonstrate defendant was unaware of the dog’s vicious propensities. Defendant’s motion should have been dismissed without reference to the opposing papers:

​

On his motion, along with his deposition testimony, defendant submitted the deposition testimony of his girlfriend and that of plaintiff. However, rather than showing that he was entitled to summary judgment, the deposition testimony showed just the opposite. Defendant testified that the dog was chained outside in order to alert him to the presence of people in his yard and to protect business assets on his property. He testified that the dog is “there to bark” and that barking and running to the full extent of its chain when people enter the property is the dog’s “job.” Defendant described an incident three to five years prior to the instant bite in which the dog grabbed a customer’s pant leg, though defendant claimed that the dog did not break any skin. We note that, even if the dog had not broken the person’s skin, such aggressive behavior may reflect a proclivity to act in such a way that puts others at risk of harm and can be found to be evidence of a vicious propensity … . * * *

​

“Knowledge of vicious propensities may . . . be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the [defendant] had notice . . . even in the absence of proof that the dog had actually bitten someone — by evidence that it had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth” … . The evidence submitted by defendant shows that he kept a guard dog on a chain so that it could not bite people, it had previously broken its chain to get to, and then circle, a person who came on defendant’s property, it had grabbed hold of another person’s pant leg and children had been warned to stay away from the dog. All these factors reflect a proclivity for the dog to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm and that defendant knew, or should have known, of the dog’s vicious propensity … . Olsen v Campbell, 2017 NY Slip Op 03828, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

 

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/DOG BITE (DOG BITE, EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

,

RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release referred only to claims arising from injuries suffered by defendant, and not injuries suffered by another:

In March 2013, third-party defendant John Salewski, while operating a tractor trailer owned by his employer and third-party defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc., was involved in a collision with a tractor trailer operated by defendant. Plaintiff is Salewski’s wife and was a passenger in the vehicle operated by Salewski at the time of the accident. Defendant commenced a personal injury action against Salewski and Werner for damages allegedly sustained in that accident. That action was settled in June 2014, and, in connection therewith, defendant executed a general release in favor of Salewski and Werner. In April 2015, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for damages that she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. Defendant answered and thereafter commenced a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Salewski and Werner. Instead of answering, Salewski and Werner moved to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground of release. Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that the plain language of the release barred the third-party action. * * *

Here, the release clearly defines the incident, the claim and the lawsuit. The fact that there are multiple references to the term “injuries” indicates an unambiguous intention to limit the release’s application only to the personal injuries suffered by defendant in the incident. We further find this language to be a clear and unambiguous expression of the parties’ intention that the release applies only to claims related to defendant’s injuries. As such, and giving full meaning and effect to its material provisions, the release plainly manifests an intent to release Salewski and Werner for any and all claims related to defendant’s personal injuries, and not to claims for contribution and indemnification for injuries allegedly suffered by another party — here, plaintiff … . Salewski v Music, 2017 NY Slip Op 03582, 3rd Dept 5-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/NEGLIGENCE (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/RELEASES (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)

SPECIAL FUND LIABLE FOR CLAIM MADE AFTER THE 2014 CUTOFF FOR NEWLY REOPENED CLAIMS, DECEDENT’S CLAIM WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND IN 2002 AND HIS DEATH WAS CAUSALLY RELATED TO THE 2002 CLAIM.

The Third Department determined the Special Fund was responsible for the decedent’s Workers’ Compensation claim. Decedent’s claim had been transferred to the Special Fund in 2002. The fact that decedent died after the 2014 cutoff for newly reopened claims was irrelevant:

The Special Fund argues that it is not liable because the consequential death claim is a new claim and, since it was filed after the January 1, 2014 cutoff for newly reopened claims against the Special Fund, liability against it is precluded (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1-a]). The Special Fund is correct that “a claim for death benefits . . . is a separate and distinct legal proceeding brought by the beneficiary’s dependents and is not equated with the beneficiary’s original disability claim” … . Indeed, there are separate statutory provisions for disability and death benefits (compare Workers’ Compensation Law § 15, with Workers’ Compensation Law § 16). However, where, as here, liability for a claim has already been transferred from the carrier to the Special Fund and the employee thereafter dies for reasons causally related to the original claim, the Special Fund remains liable for the claim for death benefits … . Thus, under these circumstances, claimant need not obtain another transfer of liability to the Special Fund upon decedent’s death, as liability had already been transferred. In that regard, Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), which closed the Special Fund to newly reopened cases as of January 1, 2014, has no bearing on the Special Fund’s liability for a claim for which liability was transferred to it in 2000 ,,, . This result is consistent with the purpose of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, which “is to shift the liability for paying stale claims to the [Special] Fund” … . Matter of Misquitta v Getty Petroleum, 2017 NY Slip Op 03585, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SPECIAL FUND LIABLE FOR CLAIM MADE AFTER THE 2014 CUTOFF FOR NEWLY REOPENED CLAIMS, DECEDENT’S CLAIM WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND IN 2002 AND HIS DEATH WAS CAUSALLY RELATED TO THE 2002 CLAIM)/SPECIAL FUND (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SPECIAL FUND LIABLE FOR CLAIM MADE AFTER THE 2014 CUTOFF FOR NEWLY REOPENED CLAIMS, DECEDENT’S CLAIM WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND IN 2002 AND HIS DEATH WAS CAUSALLY RELATED TO THE 2002 CLAIM)

, ,

STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a state trooper, defendant Begeal, was entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case because he was immune from suit for his actions, which were discretionary. Plaintiff physician assistant was injured by a patient (Lacey) brought into the hospital by law enforcement officers, including Begeal. Plaintiff was kicked by the patient and alleged Begeal negligently failed to restrain the patient’s legs:

Although Begeal had access to plastic leg restraints, the undisputed evidence established that, at the time that he left the examination room, Lacey was still handcuffed, was “extremely calm” and had allowed a nurse to remove pieces of glass from his feet without kicking or otherwise resisting the nurse’s efforts. Begeal thus made a “reasoned judgment” not to utilize the leg restraints … . Accordingly, “[t]he decision to employ [only handcuffs] was a discretionary one . . ., and [Begeal] may not be held liable for that determination” … . …

Begeal’s decision to leave the examination room to permit the medical personnel to examine Lacey in private was likewise discretionary. Although Lacey was combative when he first arrived at the hospital, Begeal did not leave the examination room until approximately 20 minutes after that time and only after ensuring that Lacey had calmed down. Based on these circumstances, Begeal “did not feel that [the hospital personnel and Feeney] were in any immediate danger” and concluded that he could safely leave the room and go to the main area in order to, among other things, wash off Lacey’s blood from his clothes. While Begeal’s judgment call proved to be incorrect, “it is not for courts to second-guess the wisdom of discretionary governmental choices, troubling though they may sometimes seem in the glaring clarity of hindsight” … . Feeney v County of Del., 2017 NY Slip Op 03583, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)

PARENTS REMEDIED THE FILTHY CONDITIONS OF THE HOME AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE WITH GRANDPARENTS, WHO AGREED TO SUPERVISE AND HELP THE PARENTS, FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO AN AUNT REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner, the maternal aunt, did not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances warranting the removal of the child from the parents’ custody and the award of custody to petitioner. Temporary custody was awarded to petitioner on the basis of an abuse allegation that was deemed unfounded. The decision to remove the child from the parents’ custody was made after an investigation revealed the parents’ home was filthy, with feces on the floor and walls and a flea infestation. However, after the home was cleaned up and the parents moved back in the condition of the home remained acceptable. The parents arranged to move in with grandparents and the grandparents agreed to supervise and help the parents:

The ground of persistent neglect warranting disruption of parental custody rights at issue here requires a showing “that the parents engaged in gross misconduct or other behavior evincing an utter indifference and irresponsibility” relative to the parental role …  . This Court has previously held that “allowing . . . children to live in squalor” is among the parental behaviors that, considered together with other undesirable conduct, may constitute gross misconduct rising to the level of extraordinary circumstances … . At the outset, it bears noting that we are sympathetic to Family Court’s determination. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing revealed no mitigating explanation for respondents’ failure to maintain minimum sanitary standards in their home; both were unemployed during the time period before the inspection, and there was no evidence that either was hampered by any illness or disability. Joblessness and poverty undeniably lead to significant difficulties in maintaining adequate housing and hardships in raising children, but are not any cause for subjecting children to feces-strewn homes; such conditions result solely from lack of care. Nevertheless, … based upon all of the record evidence, we cannot find that petitioner satisfied her “heavy burden” to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances … , and are thus constrained to reverse.

The record reveals that respondents immediately corrected the unsanitary conditions when directed to do so, such that child protective authorities permitted the younger children to return to live there. A caseworker testified that the house “exceeded minimal standards” after this intervention, and that respondents cooperated with child protective authorities throughout the investigation and followed through on everything that was asked of them. The father acknowledged that the previous conditions in the home were unacceptable, and both he and the mother testified that they would not let this happen again. The record does not reveal any further problems or complaints about respondents’ care of their children after the initial home visit. No further child protective actions were taken, the child was permitted to return to respondents’ home for regular visits during the pendency of the fact-finding hearing, and the younger children remained in respondents’ custody without interruption. Matter of Jennifer BB. v Megan CC., 2017 NY Slip Op 03576, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

FAMILY LAW (PARENTS REMEDIED THE FILTHY CONDITIONS OF THE HOME AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE WITH GRANDPARENTS, WHO AGREED TO SUPERVISE AND HELP THE PARENTS, FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO AN AUNT REVERSED)/CUSTODY (NON-PARENT, PARENTS REMEDIED THE FILTHY CONDITIONS OF THE HOME AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE WITH GRANDPARENTS, WHO AGREED TO SUPERVISE AND HELP THE PARENTS, FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO AN AUNT REVERSED)/NEGLECT (FILTHY LIVING CONDITIONS, PARENTS REMEDIED THE FILTHY CONDITIONS OF THE HOME AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE WITH GRANDPARENTS, WHO AGREED TO SUPERVISE AND HELP THE PARENTS, FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO AN AUNT REVERSED)/NON-PARENTS (CUSTODY, PARENTS REMEDIED THE FILTHY CONDITIONS OF THE HOME AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE WITH GRANDPARENTS, WHO AGREED TO SUPERVISE AND HELP THE PARENTS, FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO AN AUNT REVERSED)

,

ATTEMPT TO EXHAUST REMEDIES UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, THEREFORE THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION PRESENTED AN ISSUE RIPE FOR COURT REVIEW.

The Third Department determined the action pursuant to the Civil Service Law was not precluded because an action based on the same facts was still pending under the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Civil Service Law action was not dependent in any way on the CBA action. The petition challenged the hiring of Walsh as a part-time university police officer (UPO) by the State University of New York (SUNY):

… [T]he petition before us does not challenge any grievance determination by SUNY, nor does it cite a breach of any provision of the CBA as a basis for relief … . Instead, it challenges the appointment of Walsh on the ground that it violated Civil Service Law § 64. Although the remedies sought include an award of back pay for lost overtime assignments, available only under the CBA, counsel for petitioner confirmed, at oral argument of this appeal, that petitioner was no longer seeking such an award. Because petitioner does not allege that SUNY violated the CBA, but instead alleges a statutory violation, it was not required to use the CBA’s grievance procedure … . Article 7 of the CBA limits the grievance process to three types of disputes: first, concerning the application and/or interpretation of the CBA [7.1 (a)]; second, concerning a term or condition of employment [7.1 (b)]; and third, concerning a claim of improper or unjust discipline [7.1 (c)]. None of these provisions can be reasonably viewed as applicable to an (alleged) unlawful appointment by SUNY. Since these provisions are inapplicable, use of the grievance process to challenge the appointment on statutory grounds would have been futile … . Given that the appointment of Walsh is final, is alleged to have resulted in an actual, concrete injury to petitioner and because the question presented is “purely legal,” we find that the matter is ripe for judicial review … . Matter of Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y. State, Inc. v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03588, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (ATTEMPT TO EXHAUST REMEDIES UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, THEREFORE THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION PRESENTED AN ISSUE RIPE FOR COURT REVIEW)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ATTEMPT TO EXHAUST REMEDIES UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, THEREFORE THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION PRESENTED AN ISSUE RIPE FOR COURT REVIEW)/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ATTEMPT TO EXHAUST REMEDIES UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, THEREFORE THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION PRESENTED AN ISSUE RIPE FOR COURT REVIEW)/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ATTEMPT TO EXHAUST REMEDIES UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, THEREFORE THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION PRESENTED AN ISSUE RIPE FOR COURT REVIEW)

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