You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, reversing Supreme Court, determined that fiber-optic cables are not taxable real property under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 102. However, petitioner telecommunications company was not entitled to a refund of taxes paid because no protest was made at the time of payment:

We … address petitioner’s application for a judgment declaring that its fiber optic installations are not taxable real property under the RPTL. Resolution of this issue turns upon the construction of RPTL 102 (12) (f), which provides that real property shall include, among other things, “equipment for the distribution of heat, light, power, gases and liquids.” The parties agree that the fiber optic cables at issue consist of filaments of glass through which light beams are used to transport information and data from one point to another. Yet they sharply disagree as to whether this constitutes the “distribution” of light within the meaning of RPTL 102 (12) (f). …[W]e hold that it does not.  Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Clinton County, 2016 NY Slip Op 06930, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102)/FIBER OPTIC CABLES (FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102)/TAX LAW (FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the operators of a tubing hill unreasonably increased the risk of injury. The issues included whether there was adequate supervision, whether there was adequate protection at the bottom of the hill (hay to slow the tubes), and whether mother and son should have been allowed to tube together (thereby increasing speed):

… [I]t was plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate “facts from which it could be concluded that defendant . . . unreasonably enhanced the danger . . . or created conditions which were unique or above those inherent in [the] activity …”. A supervisor for defendants testified that on busy days, two people were assigned to work at the base of the tubing hill to spread and “fluff” the hay as needed based on conditions. At the time of the accident, however, there was only one attendant working in this area. Further, the supervisor decided to limit the tandem riders to a parent and a child based on conditions and confirmed that weight affected the speed of the tubes, i.e., the greater the weight, the greater the speed. Plaintiff testified that just before the accident, the attendant at the top of the tubing hill assured her that it was safe for her to ride in tandem with her adult-sized son, who was nearly six feet tall and weighed approximately 250 pounds. Plaintiff’s son testified that “there wasn’t a whole lot of hay” spread at the bottom of the course. A nonparty witness testified that the tubing park was very busy and that, before the accident, he observed that the hay had diminished to the point where tubers were dragging their feet to stop their tubes. Notably, defendant’s base attendant testified that once the tandem riders were limited to one adult and one child, no other groups went past the hay, while plaintiff and her son “blew through everything.” She recalled being surprised to see two adult-sized people coming down in tandem because “it was supposed to be an adult and a child.” Connolly v Willard Mtn., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06937, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING)/TUBING (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING)

EXPERIENCED SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A DEPRESSION IN THE SKI TRAIL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, Oak Mountain Ski Center, was entitled to summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s (Schorpp’s) assumption of the risk. Plaintiff, who had decades of skiing experience, and who had skied at Oak Mountain weekly, flipped over when he struck a depression on a “black diamond” trail. It was the first time plaintiff used that particular trail:

Regarding downhill skiing, an individual “assumes the inherent risk of personal injury caused by ruts, bumps or variations in the conditions of the skiing terrain” … . The application of the assumption of risk doctrine must be measured “against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … .

We conclude that defendants satisfied their moving burden by demonstrating that Schorpp assumed the risk of injury associated with downhill skiing … . Although this was his first time on the particular black-diamond trail, Schorpp had “decades of skiing experience” and had skied at Oak Mountain on a weekly basis prior to his accident. Taking into account his experience and skill level, Schorpp was aware of the risk of injury that could be caused by the depression on the ski slope … . Schorpp v Oak Mtn., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06932, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (EXPERIENCED SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A DEPRESSION IN THE SKI TRAIL)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (EXPERIENCED SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A DEPRESSION IN THE SKI TRAIL)/SKIING (EXPERIENCED SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A DEPRESSION IN THE SKI TRAIL)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was severely injured when a row of stacked scaffolding frames fell forward like “dominos.” Whether Labor 240(1) applies depends on whether the scaffolding, which was on the same level as plaintiff, presented a risk related to a significant elevation differential:

… [W]e are unable to glean from the present record whether plaintiff’s injury arose from the requisite “physically significant elevation differential” … . In determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimis, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also “the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . Critically absent from the record is any indication as to plaintiff’s height or any other evidence shedding light on the height differential between plaintiff and the stacked frames at the time they fell. Further, issues of fact remain with regard to such other relevant factors as the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff. Given these unresolved factual questions, summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) is not appropriate … . Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06927, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL (LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION.

The Third Department noted Family Court improperly delegated its authority to structure visitation and remitted the matter:

… [W]e find a sound and substantial basis in this record for Family Court’s decision to modify the prior visitation order by limiting the mother’s visitation to a counseling format — which the mother acknowledged was the best she could hope for given her strained relationship with the child … . That said, by effectively making further visitation contingent on the success of counseling and the father’s approval, Family Court improperly delegated its authority to structure a visitation schedule … . We conclude that the matter must be remitted to Family Court for a determination as to whether a resumption of visitation with the mother would be in the child’s best interests and, if so, under what conditions … . Matter of Christine TT. v Dino UU., 2016 NY Slip Op 06910, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION)

FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father (respondent) was denied due process when Family Court went ahead with proceedings to terminate his parental rights in his absence. Father was never informed that a final hearing or trial was scheduled:

A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights, but that right “is not absolute and must be balanced with the child’s right to a prompt and permanent adjudication”… . “Absent unusual justifiable circumstances, a parent’s rights should not be terminated without his or her presence at the hearing” … . Under the circumstances here, a brief adjournment to allow participation by respondent would not have significantly impinged upon the child’s right to a prompt hearing … , especially since respondent may have been the only witness regarding his defense that he had attempted to contact the child … . Because the record does not provide any indication that either respondent or his counsel was aware that the August 4, 2015 proceeding was scheduled as a final hearing or trial on the petition, and because the record likewise provides no indication that either was aware of the stay expiring on September 25, 2015, we find that respondent was denied “some opportunity to participate in a meaningful way” … . Thus, respondent is entitled to a new hearing, with new counsel assigned to represent him. Matter of Chloe N. (Joshua N.), 2016 NY Slip Op 06926,  3rd Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)/PARENTAL RIGHTS, TERMINATION (FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES.

The Third Department noted: (1) Family Court improperly delegated the authority to determine mother’s visitation to a counselor; and (2) under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the child’s attorney to take a position that did not reflect the child’s wishes:

Considering the evidence as a whole and particularly considering the psychologist’s work with all of the parties and her reasoned explanation of how numerous factors led her to conclude that there was “no credible evidence of abuse” by the father but that there was evidence of “coaching, coercion and brainwashing” of the child by the mother, we find no reason to depart from Family Court’s determination to credit the psychologist. * * *

Family Court erred by delegating the determination of the mother’s visitation to the child’s counselor. A court cannot delegate its authority to determine visitation to a mental health professional … . * * *

… [W]e find no fault in the attorney for the child’s decision to advocate for a position contrary to the child’s wishes, of which Family Court was aware, given that such wishes were “likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to [her]” … . Matter of Zakariah SS. v Tara TT., 2016 NY Slip Op 06923, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

 

FAMIILY LAW (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES)

PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

The Third Department, in a detailed decision, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a pesticide manufacturer, had not been afforded a hearing on a clean-up plan (CMA 9) which the respondent Department of Environmental Conservation sought to implement. Therefore the Department could not find that the pesticide company had “refused” to obey the implementation order and could not proceed with the clean-up itself:

… [W]e conclude that the procedural framework set forth in ECL 27-1313 applies … . Where, as here, respondent has determined that a site poses a “significant threat to the environment,” the agency may order an owner “(i) to develop an inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program, subject to the approval of [respondent], at such site, and (ii) to implement such program within reasonable time limits specified in the order” (ECL 27-1313 [3] [a]). Prior to issuing such an order, the owner is entitled to “notice and the opportunity for a hearing” (ECL 27-1313 [4]). Where a responsible party “has failed” to comply with a remedial order, either because it is unable or unwilling to do so, respondent may implement the remedial program itself (ECL 27-1313 [5] [a], [b], [c]).

Here, under the consent order, petitioner developed the CMA report. The focus in this proceeding turns to remedy selection and implementation. Under this statutory framework, petitioner was entitled to both notice (which was provided through the statement of basis process) and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of an order directing petitioner to implement CMA 9. As it turns out, petitioner was not accorded an opportunity for a hearing to assert its challenge to CMA 9 and no implementation order was issued. Absent such an order, we must agree with petitioner that respondent’s determination that it was authorized to proceed with the remedial work based on petitioner’s “refusal” to perform the work was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of FMC Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2016 NY Slip Op 06929, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)/HAZARDOUS WASTE (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)/PESTICIDE MANUFATURE (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)

, , ,

SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s risk level assessment, determined defendant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment of points:

A defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment … . Not only did County Court fail to give defendant notice of its intention to sua sponte assess points for the category of use of violence, it affirmatively misled defendant by its assurance that it had already “made a decision . . . regarding a point score,” which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process … . Considering the fact that defendant was never aware of the potential of the assignment of such points until a point in time where he no longer had an opportunity to object — his only remaining opportunity to be heard being explicitly limited to arguing for a downward departure — he need not have taken any further action to preserve the issue for our review … . People v Griest, 2016 NY Slip Op 06907, 33rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE, NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

,

NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s grand larceny conviction, determined there was insufficient evidence defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of his all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Defendant planned to return the ATV in exchange for return of his tools:

Larcenous intent is the “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person” … . The terms “deprive” and “appropriate” are both essential to larcenous intent and refer to a purpose “to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof” … . For this reason, “[t]he mens rea element of larceny is simply not satisfied by an intent to temporarily take property without the owner’s permission” … . The proof introduced at trial supported the singular reasonable conclusion that defendant was executing a plan to temporarily deprive the tenant of the ATV in order to force him to return defendant’s missing tools … . People v Drouin, 2016 NY Slip Op 06906, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)/LARCENY (NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED)

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