You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS BY TRANSFER STUDENTS UPHELD.

The Third Department determined the rules promulgated by respondent NY Public High School Athletic Association concerning restrictions on the eligibility of transfer students to participate in school sports were valid:

… [I]t is settled that “courts should not interfere with the internal affairs, proceedings, rules and orders of a high school athletic association unless there is evidence of acts which are arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion” … . Such “determination rests on whether the athletic association’s actions have a sound basis in reason and a foundation in fact” … .

We find that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the actions taken by respondent warrant our interference. The purpose of the transfer rule, which was promulgated by respondent pursuant to its constitution and by authority delegated to it through the regulations of the Commissioner of Education … , is to deter athletic school-shopping and the recruitment of high school athletes by schools. By establishing an objective standard for eligibility that prohibits, with certain limited exceptions, immediate eligibility upon a transfer not accompanied by a parental change of residence, the transfer rule reasonably and rationally furthers these legitimate goals. Indeed, “[t]he absence of such a rule might reasonably invite strategically motivated transfers thinly disguised as transfers in the best (nonathletic) interest of the student” … . Matter of Albany Academies v New York State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Assn., 2016 NY Slip Op 08290, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS BY TRANSFER STUDENTS UPHELD)/TRANSFER STUDENTS (RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS BY TRANSFER STUDENTS UPHELD)

,

TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the probation violation petition gave sufficient notice of the charges and a woman (Nichols) who had been convicted of misdemeanor DWI was a “convicted criminal” within the meaning of a condition of probation (prohibiting association with convicted criminals). The court held that it was not necessary to prove petitioner knew of the DWI conviction. The probationer apparently went to the Nichol’s apartment for the purpose of taking a dog for a walk. The dissent argued that simply taking a dog for a walk  was not “contact” or “association” with a convicted criminal:

Special condition No. 17 required defendant to refrain from associating with “convicted criminals” — as opposed to “known criminals.” Accordingly, defendant cannot avoid a violation of the subject condition simply by claiming either that he did not know that a particular individual had been convicted of a crime or that he believed that said individual was guilty of only a traffic violation. …

With respect to the issue of whether defendant “associate[d]” with Nichols within the meaning of special condition No. 17, the testimony at the hearing further demonstrated that, on approximately four occasions … , defendant called either Nichols or her daughter and thereafter went to Nichols’ apartment for the purpose of picking up and walking the dog that defendant and Nichols once shared. Notably, Nichols confirmed that she spoke with defendant, with whom she remained friends, on the telephone to make arrangements regarding the dog and testified that she personally exchanged the dog with defendant “[a]bout four times,” stating, “I would hand him the dog and he would take the dog and go down the street.” People v Kislowski, 2016 NY Slip Op 08261, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL)/PROBATION (VIOLATION, TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL)

,

STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY.

The Third Department affirmed the Court of Claim’s determination that the absence of a guide rail was not the proximate cause of claimant’s injuries, and the state was entitled to qualified immunity because it had reasonably concluded after a study that a guide rail was not necessary. Claimant was injured when the ambulance in which he was riding struck a stone wall near the roadway:

Defendant’s duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition includes the installation of guide rails when necessary … . With respect to highway safety and design, defendant is “accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . “Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” … . Schroeder v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08263, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

COURT OF CLAIMS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/IMMUNITY (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/GUIDE RAILS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)/GUARD RAILS (STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY)

FAILURE TO INFORM CARRIER OF LAWN CARE WORK WARRANTED RETURN OF BENEFITS PAID, BUT NOT A PERMANENT BAR ON FUTURE BENEFITS.

The Third Department upheld the board’s determination that claimant knowingly failed to inform the carrier he was doing some lawn care work while collecting workers’ compensation benefits. The omission was deemed a knowing false statement or misrepresentation warranting return of the benefits paid. However, the board’s ruling claimant was permanently barred from seeking benefits was not warranted by the facts:

… [A]n omission of material information may constitute a knowing false statement or misrepresentation … . We thus find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s credibility determination that claimant’s failure to fully describe and disclose his lawn mowing activities to the carrier and the carrier’s consultant at the time of the medical examination constituted knowing false statements to obtain workers’ compensation benefits in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) … .

We reach a different conclusion as to the Board’s determination permanently disqualifying claimant from receiving any future wage replacement benefits. The applicable standard is that the penalty imposed may not be disproportionate to the underlying misconduct … . In cases where this very significant sanction has been approved, the underlying deception has been deemed “egregious” or severe, or there was a lack of mitigating circumstances … . Here, the Board provided no rationale supporting its determination that this onerous penalty was warranted, and we find inadequate support for such a finding upon review. Matter of Kodra v Mondelez Intl., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08136, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (FAILURE TO INFORM CARRIER OF LAWN CARE WORK WARRANTED RETURN OF BENEFITS PAID, BUT NOT A PERMANENT BAR ON FUTURE BENEFITS)

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A NONCONFORMING USE HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED OR ABANDONED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) ruling that a nonconforming use had not been discontinured or abandoned should be affirmed. The court explained the role of the reviewing court when the controversy is fact-based and does not involve the interpretation of a statute or ordinance:

It is well settled that unless the issue presented is one of pure legal interpretation, “[a] zoning board’s interpretation of a local zoning ordinance is afforded deference and will only be disturbed if irrational or unreasonable” … . Here, the issue of whether the preexisting nonconforming use was discontinued is largely a fact-based inquiry, rather than a purely legal interpretation of the zoning law. As such, the ZBA’s determination is entitled to deference … . Matter of Lumberjack Pass Amusements, LLC v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2016 NY Slip Op 08142, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

ZONING (ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A NONCONFORMING USE HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED OR ABANDONED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED)/NONCONFORMING USE (ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A NONCONFORMING USE HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED OR ABANDONED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED)

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)

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