You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JURORS RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL.

The Third Department, over a two justice dissent, determined defense counsel’s failure to contest the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for striking jurors rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal:

Following the People’s step-two proffer, County Court denied the Batson challenge, without any attempt to respond or protestation registered by defendant. Now, on appeal, defendant contends for the first time that County Court erred in failing to conduct a step-three inquiry. However, “[b]y accepting the People’s explanation without any additional objection at a time [when] it could have been addressed, defendant failed to preserve” this contention for our review … , and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction … . In reaching this conclusion, we reaffirm the importance of both the trial court’s attention to each articulated, sequential step of the Batson inquiry, and counsel’s “attention to placing their objections on the record so they may be addressed by the court” … . Indeed, “whatever procedural problems may exist in a Batson inquiry, the overriding concern is that a properly preserved question regarding the ultimate issue of discrimination is meaningfully addressed” … . People v Acevedo, 2016 NY Slip Op 05517, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/JURORS (BATSON CHALLENGE, FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/APPEALS (BATSON CHALLENGE, FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/BATSON CHALLENGE (FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JUROR RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL)

INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT.

The Third Department determined that the court’s inquiry into whether the defendant understood the affirmative defense (insanity) he waived by pleading guilty was insufficient:

Defense counsel advised County Court during the plea colloquy that there were significant issues regarding defendant’s mental state when he attacked the trooper and that, as a result, a psychiatrist had assessed whether defendant “was unable to form the intent necessary” to commit the charged offenses … . Defense counsel then represented that defendant had agreed to accept the proffered plea bargain because the psychiatrist opined that an insanity defense could properly be raised at trial, but that he would be unable to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that defendant “did not understand the nature and consequences of his actions or that his conduct was wrong” (see Penal Law § 40.15). County Court’s response to those statements was limited to confirming that defendant had heard the representations of defense counsel, discussed those issues with him and believed that the plea agreement was “a fair resolution.” The Court of Appeals has made clear, however, that “question[s] to [a] defendant verifying that he [or she] discussed that defense with his [or her] attorney and opted not to assert it” are insufficient under these circumstances … . People v Green, 2016 NY Slip Op 05515, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)/WAIVER (CRIMINAL LAW, INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)/INSANITY DEFENSE (INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT)

,

SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND.

The Third Department determined the complaint against the school district stemming from infant plaintiff’s fall on the school playground should have been completely dismissed. The students were told to stay on the blacktop area adjacent to the playground because the playground had ice and snow on it:

Where, as here, the underlying accident “occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate [cause] of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the school defendant is warranted” … . * * *

We reach a similar conclusion with regard to plaintiff’s premises liability claim. To prevail on its motion for summary judgment, defendant was required to “establish as a matter of law that it maintained the [playground] in question in a reasonably safe condition and that it neither created the allegedly dangerous condition existing thereon nor had actual or constructive notice thereof” … . * * * … [D]efendant’s expert opined that there was “no requirement or obligation for [defendant] to clean snow and ice off of the playground surface” — a task that would have been “nearly impossible” due to the rubberized surface material. With respect to the playground equipment itself, defendant’s expert concluded that, inasmuch as plaintiff and her classmates were instructed not to use such equipment, defendant was not required to clear the equipment of snow and ice … . Such proof was, in our view, sufficient to discharge defendant’s initial burden on its motion for summary judgment. Elbadwi v Saugerties Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05421, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND)/PREMISES LIABILITY (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND)

FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.

The Third Department, reversing the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits to a firefighter, over a two-justice dissent, determined injury caused by odorless toxic fumes (unrelated to a fire) was an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner-firefighter responded to an emergency at a supermarket where two people were unconscious. It was only after the fact that the presence of carbon monoxide and cyanogen chloride was discovered:

It is well settled that for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is defined as “‘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” … . Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the event producing the injury was an accident, and respondent’s determination will be upheld where it is supported by substantial evidence … . * * *

We have “held that exposure to toxic fumes while fighting fires is an inherent risk of a firefighter’s regular duties” … . Here, however, unlike our prior cases involving exposure to toxic gases or smoke, petitioner was not responding to a fire that presented the inherent and foreseeable risk of inhaling toxic gases … . The record evidence further reflects that petitioner was neither aware that the air within the supermarket contained toxic chemical gases … , nor did he have any information that could reasonably have led him to anticipate, expect or foresee the precise hazard when responding to the medical emergency at the supermarket … . Matter of Sica v DiNapoli. 2016 NY Slip Op 05420, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)/ACCIDENT DISABILITY BENEFITS (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)/FIREFIGHTERS (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)/TOXIC FUMES (FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS)

,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined infant plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the school was liable for negligent supervision stemming from harassment and bullying by fellow students. The Third Department further determined the Dignity for All Students Act (Education Law section 10) does not create a private right of action. With respect to negligent supervision, the court wrote:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “In that regard, a school district is held to the same degree of care as would a reasonably prudent parent placed in comparable circumstances” … . “In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . Furthermore, the injuries sustained by a plaintiff must be proximately caused by the school’s breach of its duty to provide adequate supervision … . Such issues regarding adequate supervision and proximate cause are generally questions left to the trier of fact to resolve … . Motta v Eldred Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05424, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/BULLYING (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed mother’s pro se petition for custody modification without a hearing:

“‘In any modification proceeding, the threshold issue is whether there has been a change in circumstances since the prior custody order significant enough to warrant a review of the issue of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the child[]'” … . While an evidentiary hearing is not required in every case, a hearing is generally “necessary and should be conducted unless the party seeking the modification fails to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing or no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[]’s best interests” … . In determining whether a pro se petitioner made a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing, we construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference … .

In her pro se petition, the mother alleged that she had moved into an apartment with the child’s maternal grandmother, had enrolled as a full-time student and was attending “[a]lcohol counseling.” Inasmuch as the mother’s alcohol abuse was a primary factor in Family Court’s January 2015 custody determination, the mother’s factual allegations of improvement, construed liberally and if established after a hearing, could afford a basis for awarding the mother increased parenting time, unsupervised parenting time and/or access to the child’s medical and educational records. Accordingly, we find that Family Court erred in dismissing the mother’s petition without a hearing … . Matter of Miller v Bush, 2016 NY Slip Op 05413, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/CUSTODY (MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY (MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)

SEVERE ABUSE PETITION AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined the severe abuse petition against mother (respondent) should not have been dismissed by Family Court. The abuse was apparently inflicted by mother’s boyfriend in her absence and resulted in the child’s death:

Respondent demonstrated reckless judgment and disregard for the safety and well-being of the older child by allowing the boyfriend — who she had dated for only a very brief period of time and knew went out at night to procure illegal drugs — to care for her children and, significantly, by permitting him to continue to care for her children and inflict further abuse after the older child had sustained serious and an abnormal degree of bruising, which she unreasonably attributed to accidental causes and the explanations provided by the boyfriend … . To that end, respondent was aware, or should have been aware, of the older child’s numerous injuries indicative of extensive, repeated and accumulating abuse.

Equally troubling is respondent’s failure to seek professional medical treatment for the older child notwithstanding her knowledge of numerous visible injuries. Matter of Mason F. (Katlin G.–Louis F.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05408, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

FAMILY LAW (SEVERE ABUSE PETITION AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/CHILD ABUSE (SEVERE ABUSE PETITION AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SEVERE ABUSE (SEVERE ABUSE PETITION AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF ARRESTING OFFICER REVERSED.

The Third Department reversed, in the interest of justice, defendant’s conviction for assault of a police officer (Smith) because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime at the time defendant was detained. Defendant was involved in an argument with someone when the police approached and did not answer the officer’s questions:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we find no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have concluded that Smith possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminality necessary to forcibly detain defendant. As defendant’s subsequent conduct in assaulting Smith “cannot validate an encounter that was not justified at its inception” … , the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Smith was injured while undertaking a lawful duty, and defendant’s conviction must be reversed … . People v Tucker, 2016 NY Slip Op 05400, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/REASONABLE SUSPICION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/STREET STOPS  (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/SUPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSUALT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/POLICE OFFICERS (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSUALT OF A POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/RESISTING ARREST (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF POLICE OFFICER REVERSED)

, ,

EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER REQUEST FOR COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Third Department determined statements made by and evidence collected from defendant after his request for counsel should have been suppressed in this vehicular homicide case. A new trial was ordered;

The People further conceded at oral argument that defendant invoked his constitutional and limited statutory right to counsel in response to those warnings and that, under the circumstances of this case, valid grounds existed to suppress his post-invocation statements and evidence related to the DRE [drug recognition evaluation], second breathalyzer and blood tests … . The erroneous admission of this evidence is reviewed under the harmless error doctrine, and such an error is considered harmless “when, in light of the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the jury’s verdict” … . The admissible evidence at trial established that defendant took twice his prescribed dosage of Clonazepam the morning of the accident and that he failed field sobriety tests administered at the scene. Nevertheless, inasmuch as defendant’s inadmissible statements, the recording of the DRE test and the evidence of the inadmissible test results themselves may well have contributed to the conviction, it cannot be said that the erroneous admission of that evidence was harmless … . People v Green, 2016 NY Slip Op 05399, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW EXTENDS THE SIX-MONTH SPEEDY TRIAL DEADLINE IF THE LAST DAY FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, clarified the application of General Construction Law 25-a to the six-month speedy trial time limit for felonies:

At issue here is the deadline by which the People must declare readiness when a defendant is charged with a felony. It has also been held that for General Construction Law § 25-a to apply in any factual circumstance, “there must be an initially ascertainable certain day from which reckoning may be made” … . CPL 30.30 (1) (a) specifies such an ascertainable day — that is, the commencement of a criminal action — from which the six-month period within which the People are required to declare readiness for trial is to be computed. Thus, we find that when the last day of the six-month period specified by CPL 30.30 (1) (a) falls upon a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the expiration of the period in which the People must declare readiness is extended to the next succeeding business day pursuant to General Construction Law § 25-a. Here, the People’s second declaration of readiness was made on the next succeeding business day following the legal holiday upon which the six-month period expired; it was therefore timely and effective, and dismissal of the indictment was not required. People v Mandela, 2016 NY Slip Op 05401, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW EXTENDS THE SIX-MONTH SPEEDY TRIAL DEADLINE IF THE LAST DAY FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY)/SPEEDY TRIAL (GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW EXTENDS THE SIX-MONTH SPEEDY TRIAL DEADLINE IF THE LAST DAY FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY)/GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL DEADLINE, GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW EXTENDS THE SIX-MONTH SPEEDY TRIAL DEADLINE IF THE LAST DAY FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY)

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