You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

PETITIONER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PRESENT RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the determination because petitioner was not allowed to present relevant documentary evidence:

Initially, respondent concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support the finding that petitioner was guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures. Turning to the merits, petitioner asserts that he was improperly denied the right to present documentary evidence in support of his defense, an issue that, contrary to respondent’s contention, we find preserved for our review. The record establishes that when petitioner informed the Hearing Officer that he had documentary evidence, albeit not with him at that time, that would support his defense of retaliation, the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing without addressing the issue of the documentary evidence and, immediately upon recommencement of the hearing, rendered the determination of guilt. Because the documentary evidence was relevant to petitioner’s exculpatory explanation regarding the content of the letter that formed the basis of the misbehavior report, as well as to his defense of retaliation, and because we cannot say that petitioner was not prejudiced by the omission of the documents, the determination must be annulled … . Matter of Telesford v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 08149, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PRESENT RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

The Third Department, reversing the board, determined claimant’s acceptance of $10,000 and his agreement to resign during the course of grievance proceedings constituted a voluntary separation from his employment. Claimant was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [C]laimant’s resignation and acceptance of the $10,000 payment in settlement of outstanding grievances and other claims constitutes a voluntary separation from employment disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . There is no indication that claimant was forced to accept the settlement agreement or that he was subject to disciplinary action if he did not. Matter of Gill (Phoenix Energy Mgt. Inc. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08140, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS)/VOLUNTARY SEPARATION (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS)

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the incident which led to petitioner’s psychological injury was not an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner was therefore not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner was on duty in the courthouse when a man fired a shotgun into the building. Petitioner returned fire, killing the shooter:

It is well settled that for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” … . “Significantly, it must result from an activity that is not undertaken in the performance of ordinary job duties and that is not an inherent risk of such job duties” … , nor can it stem from hazards that may be reasonably anticipated … . Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the event producing the injury was an accident … , and the Comptroller’s determination will be upheld where it is supported by substantial evidence … .

There is no question that petitioner’s heroic efforts saved many lives on the morning in question, and he is to be commended for his service in the protection of others. There is also no question, however, that — based upon a review of petitioner’s job description and testimony — petitioner was injured during the course of executing the very duties that he had been assigned to perform and in the context of responding to a risk that was both reasonably foreseeable and, more to the point, inherent in the execution of his regular duties. Matter of Kowal v DiNapoli, 2016 NY Slip Op 08144, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT)/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT)/POLICE OFFICERS (COURT OFFICER, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT)

REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department determined the request for the names and addresses of residents participating in the deer management program should have been granted by the village. The residents at issue allowed deer hunting (bow and arrow) on their property:

To justify the redaction of the names, addresses and other identifying information relating to participants in the deer management program, respondent asserts that disclosure of this information “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]) or “could endanger the li[ves] or safety” of the participants (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]). Turning first to the personal privacy exemption, respondent failed to demonstrate that the redacted information fell into any of the categories of information that the Legislature has specifically determined would qualify as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed (see Public Officers Law § 89 [2] [b]). In the absence of proof establishing the applicability of one of these specifically-enumerated categories, we evaluate whether disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy “by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … . Respondent, however, has not articulated the implicated privacy interests, if any, that are to be weighed against the community’s interest in knowing the locations in which deer-hunting activities may take place. …

Nor did respondent demonstrate that disclosure of the redacted information “could endanger the li[ves] or safety” of the program’s participants (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]). While respondent was only required to demonstrate “‘a possibility of endangerment'” … , respondent’s submissions, which included the [affidavit of] … the Mayor of the Village of Cayuga Heights, which adjoined the Village of Lansing, fell short of such demonstration. [The village clerk] merely stated that deer management programs “can be contentious” and that board members of the Village of Cayuga Heights had received threats when they “considered” those programs. The Mayor of the Village of Cayuga Heights confirmed that “[p]roponents of [the] culling operation, including [her] and other Village officials, ha[d] received death threats and other threats of personal harm.” However, neither affidavit established that similar threats had been made in the Village of Lansing or that participation in the deer management program was controversial in that community. Matter of Laveck v Village Bd. of Trustees of the Vil. of Lansing, 2016 NY Slip Op 08150, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it did not award prejudgment interest on a distributive award the wife had failed to pay. The matter came before Supreme Court when the husband moved to enforce the separation agreement:

“There is no automatic entitlement to prejudgment interest, under CPLR 5001, in matrimonial litigation” … . Rather, the decision to award prejudgment interest in a matrimonial action, as well as the rate and date from which it shall be computed, are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Here, the record reflects that, following the execution of the separation agreement, issues arose regarding the accuracy of certain deeds and transfer documents prepared by the husband relative to the parcels of real property that were to be conveyed pursuant to the agreement. Such issues had not been resolved at the time of the husband’s motion to enforce the agreement, the wife claiming that certain inaccuracies still remained within the relevant documents. Although the wife’s obligation to tender the distributive award by the date prescribed in the separation agreement was not contingent upon the execution of the deeds transferring the real property, the wife explained that she had been advised by her attorney to withhold payment of the distributive award — which she had placed in a separate interest-bearing bank account — until the deeds were finalized and signed so as to ensure a contemporaneous exchange … . Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in choosing to award the husband all interest actually earned on the distributive award rather than prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001. Fori v Fori, 2016 NY Slip Op 08135, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

FAMILY LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)/INTEREST (FAMILY LAW, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)

, ,

PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER.

The Third Department affirmed the respondent commissioner of environmental conservation’s determination petitioner had failed to obtain licenses and pay license fees for an onshore petroleum storage facility and failed to maintain an adequate secondary containment area for the storage tanks. The assessment of fees and penalties was upheld, as was piercing the corporate veil to impose the fees and penalties upon petitioner’s sole shareholder personally:

The applicable standard of review is whether substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination (see CPLR 7803 [4]…). Under this standard, “it is the responsibility of the administrative agency to weigh the evidence and choose from among competing inferences therefrom and, so long as the inference drawn and the ultimate determination made are supported by substantial evidence, it is not for the court to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency” … . Respondent is not bound by the ALJ’s factual findings and is entitled to make his own findings … . To that end, respondent’s determination will not be disturbed so long as it is supported by substantial evidence … . …

Under New York’s Navigation Law, a person is prohibited from operating a major petroleum storage facility in the absence of a license (see Navigation Law § 174 [1] [a]; [9]). Matter of Supreme Energy, LLC v Martens, 2016 NY Slip Op 08143, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/NAVIGATION LAW (PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, NAVIGATION LAW, PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/CORPORATION LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, NAVIGATION LAW, PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, NAVIGATION LAW, PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)

,

NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s wrongful termination suit against the county was properly dismissed for failure to file a notice of claim. The court noted that the notice of claim requirement for suits against cities is more narrow and applies only to tort cases. The notice of claim requirements for suits against counties are not limited to tort actions:

County Law § 52 (1) broadly provides that “[a]ny claim . . . against a county for damage [or] injury . . . and any other claim for damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused . . . by or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on the part of the county, its officers, agents, servants or employees, must be made and served in compliance with [General Municipal Law § 50-e]” … . Here, plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for wrongful termination and, thus, pursuant to County Law § 52 (1), General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) required service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim for retaliatory termination arose. It is undisputed that plaintiff failed to serve a notice of claim, entitling defendant to dismissal of the complaint … .

Plaintiff’s reliance on appellate decisions involving complaints asserting a Civil Service Law § 75-b or similar claims against cities, in which the courts have ruled that the filing of a notice of claim is not required … , is misplaced. The cases cited by plaintiff involve claims against cities to which the more narrow notice of claim provisions of General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i apply, limiting the requirement for notices of claim to “tort” claims (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]) or claims for “personal injury, wrongful death or damage to real or personal property” (General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). Sager v County of Sullivan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08152, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/WRONGFUL TERMINATION (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/COUNTIES (WRONGFUL TERMINATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)

,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER HER AFTER HER POSITION WAS ABOLISHED.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined petitioner was not a “necessary employee” under the Civil Service Law. Therefore her position with the respondent school district was not obligated to transfer her when her position was abolished:

Mandamus to compel, sought by petitioner, is “an extraordinary remedy that lies only to compel the performance of acts which are mandatory, not discretionary, and only when there is a clear legal right to the relief sought” … . Civil Service Law § 70 (2) provides, in relevant part: “Upon the transfer of a function . . . from one department or agency of the state to another department or agency of the state, . . . provision shall be made for the transfer of necessary officers and employees who are substantially engaged in the performance of the function to be transferred” … . This language imposes a mandatory duty … . Thus, the ultimate issue is whether petitioner has “established a right to the relief sought which is ‘so clear as not to admit of reasonable doubt or controversy'” … . An employee is eligible for a transfer pursuant to Civil Service Law § 70 (2) only if he or she is a “necessary . . . employee[]” — i.e., if the agency or the department to which his or her duties are being transferred does not have sufficient staff at the time of the transfer to perform the duties being transferred … . Matter of Thornton v Saugerties Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 08139, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (CIVIL SERVICE LAW, CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER HER AFTER HER POSITION WAS ABOLISHED)/EDUCATION LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER HER AFTER HER POSITION WAS ABOLISHED)/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER HER AFTER HER POSITION WAS ABOLISHED)

,

MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s murder conviction, finding it against the weight of the evidence. The victim, who died from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, was defendant’s two-year-old son. The forensic evidence placed the time of the injury during a period when defendant was not home. Contradictions in witness testimony rendered it too weak to support the conviction. The Third Department went through the trial evidence in detail. The evidence cannot be fairly summarized here. People v Taft, 2016 NY Slip Op 08123, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

,

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel respondents to comply with non-judicial subpoenas was properly granted. Petitioner was charged by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) with improper conduct, i.e., shipping wine to customers in states that prohibit residents from receiving such shipments. Petitioner subpoenaed the SLA’s general counsel and several others on the SLA staff. It was petitioner’s position that shipping wine out of state had never before been deemed improper by the SLA. The court found the objections to the subpoenas, including an objection based upon attorney-client privilege, premature. Because the subpoenas sought only testimony, any objections would have to await the actual questioning at the hearing:

According to petitioner, the challenged subpoenas are intended to obtain information pertaining to, among other things, SLA’s past and present policies regarding out-of-state shipping, the standards applicable to the charges of improper conduct against petitioner and evidence related to penalty mitigation. CPLR 2308 (b) provides that, upon a motion to compel a respondent to comply with a non-judicial subpoena, the court “shall order compliance” if it determines that the subpoena was authorized. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner was authorized by SLA’s regulations to issue the subpoenas (see 9 NYCRR 54.3 [h]; see also CPLR 2302 [a]). Respondents nevertheless contend that their motion to quash should have been granted based upon their claims that the information sought by the subpoenas is privileged, irrelevant, beyond the scope of the administrative hearing, cumulative and burdensome. We affirm, finding no abuse of Supreme Court’s discretion in the denial of respondents’ cross motion … . Matter of Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v Colon, 2016 NY Slip Op 08145, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING)/SUBPOENAS (NON-JUDICIAL, TESTIMONY ONLY, MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING)

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