You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED.

The Third Department determined an action by a 28-year-old woman alleging lead paint poisoning was time-barred. Plaintiff was first diagnosed with high levels of lead in 1990. The statute of limitations runs from when the symptoms are first discovered, not when the cause of the symptoms is learned:

… [D]efendants’ submissions were sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff was cognizant of her claimed injuries, or, at a minimum, reasonably should have been, such that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Although CPLR 214-c (2) permits an action to proceed within three years from the “discovery of the injury,” this means the “discover[y of] the primary condition on which the claim is based” … , or, put differently, “the discovery of the manifestations or symptoms of the latent disease that the harmful substance produced” … . Here, accepting that lead was the causative harmful substance, plaintiff was aware of her injuries, which first manifested when she started public education in 1990 and, according to plaintiff, continued throughout her school years. Although plaintiff argues that her action is timely because she first discovered that she suffered lead poisoning when her attorney sent a solicitation letter to her mother in 2012, we disagree. Where, as here, a plaintiff is seeking the benefit of the discovery rule applicable to toxic torts, the statute runs from the date the condition or symptom is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, not the discovery of the specific cause of the condition or symptom … . Vasilatos v Dzamba, 2017 NY Slip Op 01615, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED/LEAD POISONING (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED)

,

CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined the certificate of merit filed in this medical malpractice action was inadequate. The complaint alleged malpractice by a surgeon. The certificate was based on the affidavit of plaintiff’s (Calcagno’s) physical therapist:

A certificate of merit “merely ensures that counsel has satisfied himself or herself that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of an action” … . The statute requires counsel to submit a certificate of merit declaring that he or she has consulted with at least one licensed physician who is knowledgeable regarding the relevant issues in the action, has reviewed the facts of the case, and has thus concluded that such a reasonable basis exists … .

We agree with Supreme Court that the certificate proffered by plaintiffs is inadequate. The allegations of malpractice arise from defendants’ diagnosis and surgical treatment, and the certificate of merit is based upon an affidavit of Calcagno’s physical therapist, who opined, “as a physical therapist,” that defendants’ actions were “departures from good and accepted medical practice.” However, by definition, a physical therapist cannot diagnose and is incompetent to attest to the standard of care applicable to physicians and surgeons … . Moreover, we find no merit in plaintiffs’ contention that the certificate of merit should be deemed adequate, as it was also based on certain medical reports, Calcagno’s testimony, and the pleadings. Review of these documents, standing alone, cannot suffice. Expert analysis is required to establish whether there was any departure from established standards of care, and whether any such departure was the proximate cause of injury to Calcagno … . Calcagno v Orthopedic Assoc. of Dutchess County, PC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01616, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)/CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)

,

ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.

The Third Department determined that, although none of the three children testified in this child neglect case, the children’s statements about the domestic violence witnessed by them were admissible because the statements were cross-corroborated:

“While the mere repetition of an accusation by a child is insufficient to corroborate the child’s prior account of abuse or neglect” … , “independent statements by children requiring corroboration may corroborate each other” … . * * *

… [W]e find that, although none of the children testified, their out-of-court statements sufficiently cross-corroborated one another … . Matter of Annarae I. (Jennifer K.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01605, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/HEARSAY (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)

NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the determination because there was no proof the proper information was provided to the inmate at the time the inmate purported refused to attend the hearing:

… [T]he only indication in the record that petitioner refused to attend the hearing is the form signed by the Hearing Officer and an employee witness attesting that petitioner refused to attend the hearing. Although the form includes instructions to inform an inmate about the nature of the hearing, the charges against him or her and the fact that the hearing will be conducted in the refusing inmate’s absence, the record reflects no information regarding the steps taken to ascertain the legitimacy of petitioner’s refusal or to inform him of his right to attend the hearing and the consequences of his failure to do so … . Matter of Wilson v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 01617, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

,

ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS.

The Third Department noted an acknowledged anomaly in the risk assessment guidelines for child pornography that may result in the overestimation of the risk. Because the SORA court did not make any findings about the possible overestimation, the case was remitted:

The Court of Appeals has found that an anomaly exists in assessing points to child pornography offenders under risk factor 7 in the RAI, in that the absence of a previous relationship between the offender and children pictured in pornographic images may not normally heighten the risk that the offender presents to the community, whereas a situation in which “the offender and the children are acquainted would seem to present a greater threat to the community, not a lesser one” … . The Court further concluded that such an anomaly may result in an overestimation of a child pornography offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the public … . While the Court concluded that, despite the anomaly, the plain language of the guidelines of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders authorizes the assessment of points against child pornography offenders under risk factor 7, it further stated that, “in deciding a child pornography offender’s application for a downward departure, a [Sex Offender Registration Act] court should, in the exercise of its discretion, give particularly strong consideration to the possibility that adjudicating the offender in accordance with the guidelines point score and without departing downward might lead to an excessive level of registration” … .

In denying the request for a downward departure, County Court found that points were properly assessed under risk factor 7, but did not take into consideration the potential overestimation of defendant’s risk of reoffense and the danger to the public created by the assessment of those points. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for the court to determine whether such an overestimation was created and whether a downward departure is therefore warranted … . People v Kemp, 2017 NY Slip Op 01618, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/

, ,

PROPERTY OWNERS’ FRAUD AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS ACTION BY THE TOWN ALLEGING ZONING VIOLATIONS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners’ counterclaim should have been dismissed. Defendants, in the context of a zoning-violation action by the town, alleged fraud and a violation of civil rights by the town. With respect to municipal liability for civil rights violations in the zoning context, the court explained:

A government official may face civil liability if a party can prove that he or she was “depriv[ed] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” (42 USC § 1983). With respect to zoning issues, “42 USC § 1983 protects against municipal actions that violate a property owner’s rights to due process, equal protection of the laws and just compensation for the taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution” … . To state a cause of action, defendants must “allege that, without legal justification, they were deprived of a vested property interest, consisting of more than a mere expectation or hope of obtaining a permit or a variance” … . Further, a municipal body may face liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 only where the constitutional deprivation stems from an official municipal policy or custom … .

Here, defendants never had a permit to allow them to park more than four commercial vehicles on the property or to install fuel tanks to use in association with their commercial operations. Nor do they allege that they had a vested property interest in such a special use permit … . Moreover, defendants’ submissions fail to establish that the Planning Board’s discretionary determination to impose conditions on defendants’ special use permit “rose to the level of a constitutional violation, i.e., that they were so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority . . . that would support a claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983” … . Even accepting as true that one Planning Board member stated that he wanted to “make an example” of defendants, defendants did not allege, nor does the record support a claim, that this motivation resulted from official municipal policy or custom … . Town of Tupper Lake v Sootbusters, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01428, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

ZONING (PROPERTY OWNERS’ FRAUD AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS ACTION BY THE TOWN ALLEGING ZONING VIOLATIONS)/MUNCIPAL LAW (ZONING, (PROPERTY OWNERS’ FRAUD AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS ACTION BY THE TOWN ALLEGING ZONING VIOLATIONS)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, ZONING, PROPERTY OWNERS’ FRAUD AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS ACTION BY THE TOWN ALLEGING ZONING VIOLATIONS)

,

ATTORNEY’S FEE FORM IMPROPERLY FILLED, IMPOSSIBLE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF $3000 AWARD.

The Third Department sent the matter back to the Worker’s Compensation Board for a review of the Board’s award of $3000 in attorney’s fees. The Third Department determined that the attorney’s fee form was not properly filled out and there was not enough information in the form to allow appellate review:

Our review of the OC-400.1 form submitted in this case reveals that it is very similar to the form submitted by counsel in Matter of Tenecela v Vrapo Constr. (146 AD3d 1217, 2017 NY Slip Op 00367 [2017]) — a form that the Board ultimately deemed to be inadequate in that case (id. at *2). Specifically, although the form here sets forth the dates upon which services were rendered to claimant and the number of hours allocated thereto, the description of those services is largely indecipherable. More to the point, the form tendered by counsel in this matter appears to allocate “25+” hours to an unspecified date or range of dates, thereby “making impossible any assessment of the services rendered” (id.). Finally, the Board premised its award (in part) upon “the financial status of . . . claimant” but, other than noting a reduction in the loss of wage-earning capacity suffered by claimant, the Board’s decision makes no reference to — and the record sheds no light upon — claimant’s financial status. For these reasons, the Board’s award of counsel fees is incapable of intelligent appellate review, and we remit this matter to the Board for reconsideration thereof … . Matter of Shiqerukaj v Gotham Broad, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01426, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEE FORM IMPROPERLY FILLED, IMPOSSIBLE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF $3000 AWARD)/ATTORNEYS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW, ATTORNEY’S FEE FORM IMPROPERLY FILLED, IMPOSSIBLE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF $3000 AWARD)

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY.

The Third Department annulled the determination of the Department of Labor finding that the New York Racing Association (NYRA) was required to pay the prevailing wage to a construction contractor working at the Saratoga Race Course. The Third Department held there was insufficient proof public funds were used to pay the contractor:

Labor Law § 220 provides that “[t]he wages to be paid for a legal day’s work . . . to laborers, work[ers] or mechanics upon . . . public works, shall be not less than the prevailing rate of wages” (Labor Law 220 § [3] [a]), defined as the rate paid to “workers, laborers or mechanics in the same trade or occupation in the locality where the work is being performed” (Labor Law § 220 [5]). The NY Constitution further provides that “[n]o laborer, worker or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor engaged in the performance of any public work, shall . . . be paid less than the rate of wages prevailing in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public work is to be situated, erected or used” (NY Const, art I, § 17). The Court of Appeals has recently clarified the meaning of a public work: “[f]irst, a public agency must be a party to a contract involving the employment of laborers, workers, or mechanics. Second, the contract must concern a project that primarily involves construction-like labor and is paid for by public funds. Third, the primary objective or function of the work product must be the use or other benefit of the general public” … . W.M. Schultz Constr., Inc. v Musolino, 2017 NY Slip Op 01425, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

LABOR LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/EMPLOYMENT LAW INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/PREVAILING WAGE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this psychiatric malpractice case should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ expert found fault in, inter alia, defendants’ failure to document suicide assessments. Plaintiffs’ decedent committed suicide shortly after the defendant psychiatrists, Roberts and Decker, saw her:

Plaintiffs submitted the factually specific affidavit of a psychiatrist who, relying upon the foregoing, opined that Roberts deviated from the minimum standard of care in failing to document a proper suicide risk assessment and then discharging decedent without ensuring that she obtain psychotherapy and medication management within two days … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ expert psychiatrist opined that Decker fell short of the minimum standard of care by failing to properly conduct and document a suicide risk assessment of decedent, who was experiencing triggering anxiety and untreated depression. The psychiatrist further opined that Decker departed from the minimum standard of care in placing medication adjustment and psychotherapy on hold in the expectation that a “severely compromised” person would provide more information on an inpatient treatment facility that she was curious about. Tkacheff v Roberts, 2017 NY Slip Op 01429, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/PSYCHIATRISTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/SUICIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL DOWN A STAIRWAY LEADING TO THE RESTAURANT BASEMENT WHICH WAS ACCESSED BY AN UNMARKED, UNLOCKED DOOR; ALTHOUGH THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT WITNESSED, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant restaurant. Plaintiff’s decedent fell down a flight of stairs leading from an unmarked door to the basement of the restaurant. Although no one witnessed the accident, circumstantial evidence supported the view that the stairway and unmarked door presented a dangerous condition which caused plaintiff’s fall:

The evidence established numerous questions of fact as to whether the staircase presented a dangerous condition to those using it, the most obvious being that the door opened over descending stairs … . [The owner’s] regular use of the stairs and his personal installation of the handrail established a question of fact as to notice or creation of the dangerous condition … . Finally, although the fall was unwitnessed, a jury could logically infer from the evidence regarding the risks that the staircase posed, the evidence of previous falls on the staircase and the evidence that decedent was healthy, agile and not visibly intoxicated at the time of the accident that the dangerous condition of the staircase caused her fall … . Acton v 1906 Rest. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01431, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL DOWN A STAIRWAY LEADING TO THE RESTAURANT BASEMENT WHICH WAS ACCESSED BY AN UNMARKED, UNLOCKED DOOR, ALTHOUGH THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT WITNESSED, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/STAIRWAYS (PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL DOWN A STAIRWAY LEADING TO THE RESTAURANT BASEMENT WHICH WAS ACCESSED BY AN UNMARKED, UNLOCKED DOOR, ALTHOUGH THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT WITNESSED, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

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