You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE WINTESSES’ REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.

The Third Department determined the hearing officer’s denial of petitioner’s request for a witness and failure to inquire into the reasons witnesses refused to testify required a new hearing:

… [T]he Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to have a State Police investigator testify and failed to make a proper inquiry into the reasons that certain inmate witnesses refused to testify. Although the Hearing Officer denied the investigator’s testimony as irrelevant because he was not present at the time of the attack and his investigation was separate from the one conducted by correction officials, petitioner maintained that the investigator obtained statements during the course of his investigation that materially contradicted the evidence relied upon by correction officials. Inasmuch as such testimony would have been potentially helpful to petitioner’s defense, the Hearing Officer erred in denying it. However, given that the Hearing Officer articulated a good-faith reason for such denial, this was at most a regulatory violation entitling petitioner to a new hearing and not expungement … .

As for the inmate witnesses’ refusal to testify, the Hearing Officer relied upon the notations contained in the employee assistant form indicating that they were interviewed as potential witnesses, but did not agree to testify. The Hearing Officer, however, did not make any inquiry into the reasons for their refusal or obtain written refusal forms from them. Although this constituted a denial of petitioner’s right to call witnesses, it too was only a regulatory violation inasmuch as the employee assistant had ascertained whether the inmate witnesses would be willing to testify and the Hearing Officer’s reliance on the employee assistant form constitutes a good-faith basis for denying petitioner’s request … . Matter of Mosley v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 00061, 3rd Dept 1-5-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE WINTESSES’ REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING)

SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant security officer was not an employee of TMR, which was essentially a placement service which posted security jobs on a secure website:

TMR posted security-related jobs on a secure website for its clients, who dictated the hours to be worked, as well as the scope of services that were needed. The security officers, after browsing through these postings, would request to work on any particular job, which TMR ultimately awarded on a “first come, first serve” basis. The security officers were free to select a job that they wanted and were not prohibited from seeking jobs from TMR’s competitors. TMR did not provide the security officers with training or equipment nor did TMR pay the security officers a set hourly rate. Furthermore, once TMR placed the security officer with a client, TMR did not enter into a contract with the security officer. While a security officer could be in the middle of a continuing job for a client, he or she was nonetheless free to leave at any point and work elsewhere. In addition, if an issue arose with the security officer’s performance, the client dealt with the security officer directly, and TMR would be notified if it needed to provide a substitute security officer. Matter of TMR Sec. Consultants, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08922, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE)/SECURITY OFFICERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE)

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER FINAL CHILD SUPPORT AWARD UPON DIVORCE.

The Third Department, in this divorce action, determined that Supreme Court’s attempt to give the husband credit for the difference between the higher child support payments imposed prior to the divorce and the lower payments ordered in the final child support award was error:

… [T]he temporary support payments already made by the husband pursuant to the pendente lite order exceeded the retroactive support obligation set forth by Supreme Court. Absent any statutory authority for recoupment of overpayments of child support and given the “‘strong public policy against restitution or recoupment of [such] overpayments'” … , we conclude that Supreme Court erred in crediting the husband for the temporary child support payments that he made in excess of what he was required to pay under the final child support award … . Sprole v Sprole, 2016 NY Slip Op 08911, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER FINAL CHILD SUPPORT AWARD UPON DIVORCE)/CHILD SUPPORT (CHILD SUPPORT, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER FINAL CHILD SUPPORT AWARD UPON DIVORCE)

BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department, in an extensive decision, reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and found that claimant, a blog writer for the The Nation magazine, was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

At the outset, we are satisfied that claimant — an experienced, well-known and established writer, author and media critic — qualifies as a professional for purposes of our analysis. Hence, our focus will be whether the company exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” by claimant … . …

While it is true that claimant was required to identify himself as a writer for The Nation, was paid an annual salary in monthly installments and was reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, it is equally true that claimant received a 1099 form each year, filed his taxes as self-employed, was not required to obtain permission prior to taking a vacation and neither received fringe benefitnor was covered by the union contract pertaining to The Nation’s staff writers … . …

Turning to the actual degree of supervision or control exercised over claimant’s work, the record reveals that claimant was not formally interviewed for his position … , worked from home utilizing his personal laptop, set his own hours and did not suffer any adverse consequences if he did not post a story … . Additionally, claimant did not have a supervisor …  and was not permitted to work from The Nation’s offices. Significantly, the record makes clear that claimant generally was not assigned to write on a particular topic and could post a story to his blog prior to it being edited by The Nation’s staff … . * * *

Although claimant was given “a broad direction to write about the media . . . and politics,” “the contents of the post and the topic were really . . . entirely his choice.” Unlike staff writers, claimant could not be compelled to write on a particular topic and, while The Nation preferred that claimant post his articles early in the workday and that such articles be submitted for editorial review prior to posting on the website, the senior editor made clear that claimant had no established work hours, could post whenever and from wherever he wished and that there were “no repercussions” and “no consequences” if claimant posted an article later in the day without editorial review or, alternatively, did not post at all on a given day. Matter of Mitchell (Nation Co. Ltd. Partners — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08923, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/WRITERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BLOGGERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation Law precluded a lawsuit in negligence against the defendant, who was the president and a shareholder of plaintiff’s employer, Total Recall, and was the owner, in an individual capacity, of the building in which Total Recall is located. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot behind the building:

… [W]hen an employee, during the course of his or her employment, is injured due to the negligence of a coemployee, the employee’s right to compensation lies under the exclusive provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]…). Where the defendant is both the property owner and a corporate officer of the plaintiff’s employer, the defendant’s responsibility to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work may be merged, in which case, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole remedy for the plaintiff … . If, however, the “defendant’s duty of care toward [the] plaintiff was owed purely in [the] capacity as owner of the property at the accident site, and not at all as a coemployee,” Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) will not bar the plaintiff’s negligence action … .

The issue distills to whether the accident site was in an area that was exclusive to Total Recall and its employees such that defendant, as the property owner and an executive officer of Total Recall, had indistinguishable obligations to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition. Garelle v Geinitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08916, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/CORPORATION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)

,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, after finding the notice of claim was sufficient notice of the negligent supervision cause of action, determined the defendant town was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Town workers were in the process of delivering a load of wood chips to plaintiff. When the wood chips stopped flowing from the dump truck, plaintiff attempted to free the chips by slamming the tailgate. Plaintiff's thumb and wrist were crushed by the tailgate. Although plaintiff alleged that he called out to the driver (Klopfer) to ask if he should slam the tailgate, there was no response. The Third Department found plaintiff's unilateral decision to slam the tailgate was the sole proximate cause of his injury:

The dispute centers on whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff and, if so, whether defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. From a general perspective, we recognize that Klopfer had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a municipal dump truck. Moreover, Klopfer was certainly aware of plaintiff's presence during the unloading process. That said, the Court of Appeals has emphasized a “reluctance to extend liability to a defendant for failure to control the conduct of others” … . By his testimony, plaintiff confirmed that he acted of his own accord, slamming the tailgate twice within only a few seconds, providing little if any opportunity for Klopfer to respond — even if he heard plaintiff call out … . There was no defect in the tailgate and the risk of injuring one's hand when slamming a tailgate is obvious as a matter of common sense. No resident, including plaintiff, had ever previously attempted to intervene in the discharge process and, while [a second town worker] had stepped away, plaintiff knew he was on site and could have sought his assistance. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiff's intervening action in slamming the tailgate was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Barone v Town of New Scotland, 2016 NY Slip Op 08927, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (PLAINTIFF'S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (PLAINTIFF'S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION)

AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Third Department affirmed the grant of a petition by the prison warden authorizing the force feeding of an inmate for the duration of his incarceration:

When an inmate commences a hunger strike, which, if continued, would create a substantial risk of imminent death or serious permanent injury, a force-feeding order is warranted if the state’s intervention, even if contrary to the inmate’s constitutional rights, is reasonably related to its legitimate penological interests, including those in preserving the inmate’s life and maintaining safety and discipline within the facility (see Matter of Bezio v Dorsey, 21 NY3d 93, 99, 101-107 [2013]). The record shows that respondent had repeatedly engaged in hunger strikes since May 2013 with the stated purpose of obtaining a transfer to a maximum A security facility, and that respondent had stated that he would continue his hunger strike until he died or was transferred. …

We look no further than the holding in Matter of Bezio v Dorsey (supra) to reach the conclusion that the state’s interest in preserving respondent’s life outweighs any claimed infringement of respondent’s constitutional rights. On the record before us, Supreme Court properly issued a force-feeding order for the duration of respondent’s incarceration. Matter of Martuscello v Jua TT., 2016 NY Slip Op 08905, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

INVOLUNTARY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND FEEDING (INMATES) (AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED)/INMATES (INVOLUNTARY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND FEEDING, AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED)

DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS REVERSED, CASE REMITTED TO DETERMINE IF REDACTION CAN ADEQUATLEY PROTECT PRIVACY.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the requests for information about former public employees who applied for positions in state college police departments should not have been denied. The argument that redaction of identifying information from the documents (to which petitioner agreed) would not protect the applicants’ privacy was rejected. The matter was remitted for court review of the documents:

… [R]espondents argue — and Supreme Court agreed — that, given the prominent nature of the positions and the limited number of applicants, disclosure of the requested documents, even with appropriate redactions, could lead to the identification of the unsuccessful applicants. Such speculation, however, “does not rise to the level of ‘a particularized and specific justification for denying access’ to the [entirety of] the records requested” … . Respondents have failed to demonstrate any factual basis for their assertion that the requested documents cannot be redacted in such a manner as to protect the identity of the individual applicants … . …

… [T]he matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for an in camera inspection of the requested documents to determine the extent to which they contain information exempt from disclosure and whether such information can be redacted while still protecting the personal privacy of those individuals … . Matter of Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y. State, Inc. v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08918 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS REVERSED, CASE REMITTED TO DETERMINE IF REDACTION CAN ADEQUATLEY PROTECT PRIVACY)

, ,

TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the motion to suppress drugs seized from defendant’s car should have been granted. The deputy stopped defendant’s car based solely on a temporary inspection sticker without any suspicion of criminal behavior. The court noted that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because defendant did not waive his right to appeal, and the harmless error standard applied because defendant pled guilty after the motion was denied:

The deputy candidly admitted that he had no idea whether the sticker was valid when he made the stop, nor did he indicate that the temporary sticker gave him any other reason for suspicion. He instead stated that his “general practice” was to stop any vehicle he encountered with a temporary inspection sticker in order to “ensure [that the sticker had] not expired.” It is entirely proper to operate a motor vehicle with a temporary inspection sticker under certain circumstances and, as a result, the display of one does not constitute grounds for a traffic stop absent a “specific articulable basis” to believe that illegality is afoot … . The practice of stopping any vehicle with a temporary inspection sticker, without more, represents impermissible “idle curiosity” as to the sticker’s validity rather than the “reasonable suspicion” of illegality needed to effect a traffic stop … . People v Driscoll, 2016 NY Slip Op 08902, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/STREET STOPS (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)

MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother had sufficiently demonstrated a change in circumstances to warrant unsupervised visitation with her child. Mother was successfully controlling her addiction and was maintaining a full-time job:

“As the party seeking to modify a prior order of visitation, the [mother] bore the initial burden of showing that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant Family Court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming that requirement is met, the [mother] then must show that modification of the prior order is necessary in order to ensure the child’s continued best interests” … . In this regard, “expanded visitation is generally favorable absent proof that such visitation is inimical to the child[‘s] welfare” … .

The mother’s modification request stemmed from certain changes that had occurred in both her personal life and the child’s schedule since entry of the prior order. With respect to the child’s schedule, the mother explained that, now that the child was enrolled in school, there was a narrow window of opportunity during the school week (60 to 90 minutes each day) when she could enjoy visitations with her daughter. As to her personal life, the mother testified — without contradiction — that she had completed a detox program, was actively engaged in both group therapy and a community-based support group (Alcoholics Anonymous), the latter of which she attended three or four times each week, had obtained a sponsor (with whom she spoke daily and tried to meet in person twice a month), was participating in a Suboxone treatment program (for which she underwent regular testing to monitor the level of Suboxone in her system), was subject to regular drug testing for illegal substances (all of which came back negative), was successfully maintaining a full-time job and, as of the date of the hearing, had been “clean” for more than one year … . Matter of Beeken v Fredenburg, 2016 NY Slip Op 08919, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB)

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