You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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)

NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proposed use of church property to house homeless persons did not require a variance:

Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice and all churches recognize that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the congregation in prayer. . . . To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of the opportunity of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening itself and the congregation” … . To that end, “[s]ervices to the homeless have been judicially recognized as religious conduct” … . Matter of Sullivan v Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 07911, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

ZONING (NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS)/CHURCH PROPERTY (ZONING, NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS)/HOMELESS (ZONING, NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS)

, ,

FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS.

The Third Department determined the action against the city alleging negligence resulting in the destruction of plaintiffs’ property by fire should not have been dismissed. Fire department personnel told the plaintiffs the fire had been extinguished and that it was safe to reenter. However the fire rekindled. The Third Department held that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiffs stemming from the assurances the fire was out:

To establish a special relationship, plaintiffs were required to show: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and providing them the benefit of every favorable inference …, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first element, there is no dispute that defendants’ agents dispatched the Department to plaintiffs’ residence in response to their 911 call for assistance and that the responding crew thereafter assumed control over the ongoing fire. Even if the Department’s actions in that regard simply constituted the performance of a duty owed to the public generally … , we are of the view that, by making affirmative representations to plaintiffs that the fire had been fully extinguished and that it was safe to reenter the home, the Department assumed an affirmative duty to plaintiffs … . As for the second and third elements, knowledge on the part of the Department that inaction could result in harm can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances … , and the Department’s employees undisputedly had direct contact with plaintiffs. With respect to the final element, plaintiffs allege that they relied upon the Department’s assurances that the fire was completely extinguished in choosing to leave their home unattended for the evening. Trimble v City of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 07912, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/FIRE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s action alleging defective design and construction of a highway should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s car slid on ice and snow and went off the road. Plaintiff alleged a guardrail should have been installed. The court noted that the written notice requirement did not apply to the guardrail allegation:

A municipality has a nondelegable duty to the public to construct and maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to furnishing and maintaining adequate barriers or guardrails where appropriate … . To that end, a municipality is under no obligation to upgrade its roads that complied with design standards when they were built merely because the standards were subsequently upgraded … .

We conclude that defendant failed to establish that the design of the road comported with the applicable standards at the time that County Road 113 was constructed. County Road 113, over which defendant admitted ownership, was constructed in the late 1940s. Defendant’s engineering expert did not identify what standards were in effect at the time that County Road 113 was designed or constructed … . Rather, defendant’s expert cited to the Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual in concluding that there was little justification for the placement of a guardrail at the location of [the] accident. This manual, however, was published in the 1970s and, therefore, does not apply to County Road 113. Fu v County of Wash., 2016 NY Slip Op 07910, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/GUARDRAILS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was question of fact whether the county defendants were negligent in failing to determine whether an inmate was violent. Plaintiff was assaulted by the inmate and alleged the county should have reviewed the inmate’s past record of violent behavior:

“Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the [s]tate [or its political subdivisions] owe[] a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . This duty of care does not render the custodial entity “an insurer of inmate safety[,] and negligence cannot be inferred merely because an incident occurred” … . The duty owed is instead “limited to providing reasonable care to protect inmates from risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable, i.e., those that [the custodial entity or its agents] knew or should have known” … . * * *

Correction Law § 500-b (7) (a) states that the reviewing officer “shall exercise good judgment and discretion and shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the assignment of persons to facility housing units” advances the safety and security of all inmates and that of the facility in general. The statute enumerates a number of factors to consider in that analysis, but an inmate’s history of assaultive behavior or his or her prior prison disciplinary history are not among them … . The statute further lacks a specific requirement that the reviewing officer obtain all records pertaining to an inmate, instead directing a review of whatever “relevant and known” records are “accessible and available” (Correction Law § 500-b [7] [c] [3]). The statute accordingly creates a “possibility of exceptions . . . significant enough to justify a case-by-case determination of negligence without the automatic imposition of negligence under the negligence per se doctrine,” although a failure to obtain specific records could well constitute evidence of negligence in a given case … . Wassmann v County of Ulster, 2016 NY Slip Op 07907, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (INMATES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, INMATES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)/INMATES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)/ASSAULT  (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined an action alleging negligent maintenance of a sewer system should not have been dismissed. The court noted that the written notice requirement (a common prerequisite for municipal liability) applies to defects in roads and sidewalks, etc. and does not apply to subsurface structures:

It is settled that a municipality is under a continuing duty to maintain and repair its sewage and water systems … , and this duty is independent of the duty not to create a dangerous or defective condition … . “[T]he breach of this ongoing duty is the ‘event’ that forms the basis for the claim” for purposes of General Municipal Law § 50-i … . Thus, defendant’s negligence, if any, in failing to maintain or repair its water and/or sewage system constitutes a continuing wrong that gives rise to a new cause of action for each injury that occurred … . Plaintiff’s recoverable damages, however, are limited “‘to those caused by the alleged unlawful acts sustained within 90 days preceding the date of filing of the notice of claim'” … . 461 Broadway, LLC v Village of Monticello, 2016 NY Slip Op 07905, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SEWER SYSTEMS (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

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