You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department determined the failure to grant defendant's for cause challenge to a juror required reversal:

During the course of jury selection, prospective juror No. 15 expressed concern regarding a potential witness's prior criminal “track record.” After initially indicating that he might be influenced “greatly” by a witness's criminal record, County Court explained to prospective juror No. 15 — and the rest of the panel — that the jury could take into consideration a witness's prior criminal conviction in assessing whether the jury believed the testimony offered by that witness. When asked by County Court whether he could follow the court's instruction on that point, prospective juror No. 15 replied, “Oh, yes, yes.” Upon further inquiry by defense counsel, however, prospective juror No. 15 explained that if he were to learn that defendant [*5]previously had engaged in the same or similar offenses as those charged in the indictment, he “might be swayed” by what he would view “as a continuous track record.” When asked how such knowledge would affect his thinking, prospective juror No. 15 replied, “Negatively.” Defense counsel then inquired, “Negatively towards?,” in response to which prospective juror No. 15 stated, “Guilty.” When defense counsel asked, “Just by virtue of a [prior] record?,” the prospective juror replied, “Yes, of a continuous criminal record, yes.” Other than County Court's general inquiry as to the panel's ability to follow the law as charged by the court, no further questioning of this juror occurred and no unequivocal assurances of impartiality were elicited. People v Cuevas, 2016 NY Slip Op 04468, 3rd Dept 6-9-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

POLICY MEMORANDUM FROM NEW YORK STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM AMOUNTED TO A RULE OR REGULATION WHICH MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER FILED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CONTEST THE POLICY NEVER STARTED TO RUN.

The Third Department determined the four month statute of limitations for challenging a policy announced by the New York State Health Insurance Plan (NYSHIP) never started to run because the policy memorandum amount to a rule or regulation which was never filed with the Department of State:

Here, the policy memorandum broadly and invariably affects “that segment of the ‘general public’ over which” the State respondents have authority, inasmuch as it applies to all individuals eligible for NYSHIP coverage who seek to participate in the health insurance buyout program … . Furthermore, the pronouncement that all those who decline their own NYSHIP coverage are now ineligible for the buyout program if their alternative coverage — e.g., through a spouse — is also a NYSHIP plan, clearly reflects “a firm, rigid, unqualified standard or policy” that effectively “carves out a course of conduct for the future” … . Consequently, we find that the policy memorandum constitutes a “rule or regulation” within the meaning of NY Constitution, article IV, § 8 and Executive Law § 102 (1) (a). As such, it is invalid and without effect until it is filed with the Department of State … . Matter of Plainview-Old Bethpage Congress of Teachers v New York State Health Ins. Plan, 2016 NY Slip Op 04473, 3rd Dept 6-9-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (POLICY MEMORANDUM FROM NEW YORK STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM AMOUNTED TO A RULE OR REGULATION WHICH MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER THE FILED FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CONTEST THE POLICY NEVER STARTED TO RUN)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (POLICY MEMORANDUM FROM NEW YORK STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM AMOUNTED TO A RULE OR REGULATION WHICH MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER THE FILED FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CONTEST THE POLICY NEVER STARTED TO RUN)

,

LINK BETWEEN HEART ATTACK AND WORK NOT ESTABLISHED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

The Third Department, reversing the Workers' Compensation Board, found there was insufficient evidence linking claimant's heart attack (myocardial infarction) to his work:

While the Board is entitled to resolve conflicting medical opinions, there must be “medical opinion evidence regarding the probability of a causal relationship supported by a rational basis; a general expression of possibility will not suffice” … . Here, because the testimony of claimant's treating cardiologist expressed merely the possibility that the physical activities in which claimant engaged could have caused his myocardial infarction, such testimony falls short of the required degree of medical proof. As a result, the Board's determination based upon that testimony lacked a rational basis and was not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Hartigan v Albany County Sheriff's Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 04280, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (LINK BETWEEN HEART ATTACK AND WORK NOT ESTABLISHED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (WORKERS' COMPENSATION, LINK BETWEEN HEART ATTACK AND WORK NOT ESTABLISHED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE)

LONG HAUL TRUCKERS NOT EMPLOYEES.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined long haul truckers working for LaValle were not employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, long-haul drivers called a LaValle dispatcher to find out what loads were available. The drivers were free to accept or reject any load without penalty from LaValle. Simply stated, they could work when and if they wanted or not at all. Significantly, and unlike Matter of Harold … , the drivers were not required to work exclusively for LaValle and were free to accept jobs with other companies. Moreover, they were not required to lease their vehicles from LaValle. In fact, it is undisputed that about 40% of the drivers owned their vehicles and, of the remaining 60%, only about half leased from LaValle. Subject to compliance with insurance and regulatory requirements, the drivers who agreed to transport loads were allowed to hire other drivers to make the delivery and, in fact, some did so. The compensation rate for the drivers was not set solely by LaValle. Although drivers typically received 70% of the gross revenue for transporting the load, they were free to negotiate a higher percentage from LaValle, and the record reflects that such higher negotiated rates were not rare.

No one from LaValle supervised the drivers. They were free to choose whatever routes they desired in transporting loads. The drivers received no fringe benefits, there was no dress code, they were not required to attend meetings, they were not trained by LaValle and they were not reimbursed for their expenses. Drivers carried their own independent business cards. Claimant testified that he considered himself an independent contractor. He was issued an IRS 1099 form, and he reported that he was self-employed on his state and federal taxes. * * * LaValle and the long-haul drivers met virtually none of the criteria typically considered for an employer-employee relationship … . Matter of Bogart (Lavalle Transp., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 04264, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (LONG HAUL TRUCKERS NOT EMPLOYEES)

,

JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the controlling Social Services Law statutes did not give the Justice Center for the Protection of Persons with Special Needs (Justice Center) the authority to find make a “neglect” finding against a facility for people with developmental disabilities. When two staff members left a resident unsupervised the resident engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. The resident had acted similarly in the past:

… [T]he issue before us “is one of pure statutory interpretation dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . In performing this function, we are “constitutionally bound to give effect to the expressed will of the Legislature and the plain and obvious meaning of a statute is always preferred to any curious, narrow or hidden sense that nothing but a strained interpretation of legislative intent would discern” … .

… While the Justice Center is indeed permitted to make a “concurrent finding” with respect to a facility or provider agency in conjunction with either a substantiated or unsubstantiated report, the scope of that “concurrent finding” is expressly circumscribed by the statute. By its terms, the only “concurrent finding” that may be made is “that a systemic problem caused or contributed to the occurrence of the incident” (Social Services Law § 493 [3] [b]). Had the Legislature intended to authorize the Justice Center to make a concurrent finding of neglect as against a facility or provider agency, it could have expressly said so. Likewise, if it was the intent of the Legislature to equate a finding “that a systemic problem caused or contributed to the occurrence of the incident” with a finding of “neglect,” it could have easily done so through use of the term “neglect.” It is axiomatic that “new language cannot be imported into a statute to give it a meaning not otherwise found therein” (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94 at 190), nor can a court “amend a statute by inserting words that are not there” … . Matter of Anonymous v Molik, 2016 NY Slip Op 04288, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES)/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, PEOPLE WITH (JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES)/NEGLECT (JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE, PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT TOWN PREMATURE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pre-discovery granting of the defendant-town's motion for summary judgment in this trip and fall case was premature. Although the town proved it did not have written notice of the defect, the plaintiffs raised a question of fact whether the town created the dangerous condition, thereby eliminating the written notice requirement:

In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiffs provided an affidavit from … Debra Rodriguez. According to Rodriguez, … she heard a “loud bang while one of the [d]efendant's snowplows was clearing the roadway in front of [her] house.” Then, “[a]fter the snow melted, [she] saw that the end of the culvert pipe was mangled, bent upwards and protruding above the surrounding surfaces . . . [and] [she] believe[s] that this dangerous condition was created by [defendant's] snowplow.” * * *

“[A] summary judgment motion is properly denied as premature when the nonmoving party has not been given reasonable time and opportunity to conduct disclosure relative to pertinent evidence that is within the exclusive knowledge of the movant” … . We find that the Rodriguez affidavit is sufficient to demonstrate that discovery is required and, therefore, defendant's motion should have been denied as premature. Greener v Town of Hurley, 2016 NY Slip Op 04291, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE, PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT TOWN PREMATURE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE, PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT TOWN PREMATURE)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE, PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT TOWN PREMATURE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE, PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT TOWN PREMATURE)

,

PETITIONER’S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED.

The Third Department determined decertification of petitioner's Empire Zone status was supported by sufficient evidence, including, but not limited to, petitioner's affirmative response to whether it was subject to a Tax Law provision which required it to demonstrate the business was formed for a valid business purpose:

As a participant in the Empire Zones Program, petitioner was required to complete and submit business annual reports (hereinafter BARs) that provided information about its activities, employment and investments (see 5 NYCRR 11.7). The BAR that petitioner completed for 2006 included a section inquiring whether its business was subject to a recently-enacted Tax Law provision that excluded certain firms from receiving tax benefits unless they could establish that they had been formed for a valid business purpose (see Tax Law § 14 [j] [4] [B]). Petitioner responded affirmatively and, as required by the form, attached a statement explaining that it had been formed by combining two previously-existing accounting firms for various valid business purposes. We find that petitioner's affirmative response on the 2006 BAR, taken together with facts set forth in the attached explanatory statement, provided a rational basis for the Commissioner's decertification decision.

Petitioner's mere affirmative response to the question whether the Tax Law provision was applicable to its business, without more, would not have sufficed to provide a rational basis for the determination that it was a shirt-changer. * * * However, the statement that petitioner attached to the 2006 BAR to demonstrate that it was formed for a valid business purpose contained factual information that was relevant to the Commissioner's 2009 analysis. In the statement, petitioner averred that it was formed in 2002 by combining two previously existing accounting firms, one of which — then known as Dermody, Burke & Brown, P.C. — had been engaged in the practice of public accountancy for 50 years. According to the statement, the 14 shareholders of this firm joined with the seven partners of a second accounting firm, Pasquale and Bowers, LLP, to become members of a new entity, which subsequently carried on the combined practices of the two previous firms. These factual assertions were sufficient to give rise to the reasonable inference that petitioner had caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with the previous two accounting firms to similar employment with petitioner, and that — as petitioner's members were the same individuals who had been the members and shareholders of its predecessors — its ownership was similar to that of the prior firms. Accordingly, there was an evidentiary basis for the determination that petitioner was a shirt-changer within the meaning of the 2009 legislation … . Matter of Dermody, Burke & Brown, CPAs, LLC v Department of Economic Dev., 2016 NY Slip Op 04286, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED)/TAX LAW (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED)/EMPIRE ZONES PROGRAM (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION PROPERLY REVOKED)

,

PETITIONER’S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED.

The Third Department, reversing the Empire Zone Designation Board, determined the decision to revoke petitioner's Empire Zones Program certification was arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that petitioner's affirmative response to a question mandated by the Tax Law concerning whether petitioner had ever been required to demonstrate the business was formed for a valid business purpose was not, standing alone, a basis for decertification:

In deciding whether a business should be decertified for failing the shirt-changer test, the Commissioner was directed to determine whether the entity had “caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with another business enterprise with similar ownership . . . to similar employment with the certified business enterprise or if the enterprise acquired, purchased, leased, or had transferred to it real property previously owned by an entity with similar ownership, regardless of form of incorporation or organization” (General Municipal Law § 959 [a] [v] [5]; see General Municipal Law § 959 [w]). Petitioner contends that it never engaged in such transfers of real property or employment, that the administrative record lacks any evidence to the contrary, and, thus, that there is no factual basis for the determination that this provision was violated. We agree, and therefore find that the Board's denial of petitioner's appeal from the revocation of its certificate was “arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis” … . Matter of PG Erie Props., LLC v Department of Economic Dev., 2016 NY Slip Op 04284, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED)/TAX LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED)/EMPIRE ZONES PROGRAM (PETITIONER'S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED)

,

COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON DESIGN OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. During a hurricane, a county drainage system overflowed and damaged plaintiffs’ property. The county was immune from suit based upon the design and placement of the drainage system. And the plaintiff’s failed to raise a question of fact concerning the allegation the county negligently maintained the drainage system:

… [T]o the extent that plaintiffs’ negligence claim alleges that defendant failed to adequately design or redesign the drainage system, it cannot be maintained. Decisions “‘determining when and where [drainage ditches] shall be built, of what size and at what level, are of a quasi judicial nature, involving the exercise of deliberate judgment and large discretion . . . [which] is not subject to revision by a court or jury in a private action for not sufficiently draining a particular lot of land'” … .

The act of maintaining a drainage system, on the other hand, is ministerial in nature and, thus, governmental immunity will not insulate defendant from plaintiffs’ alternative claim that it did so negligently … . “Nonetheless, [defendant] is not an insurer of its [drainage] system and cannot be held liable for injury unless it is shown that the injury was caused by active negligence in the maintenance of the system” … . Watt v County of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 04281, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON DESIGN OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM)/IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON DESIGN OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM)/STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON DESIGN OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM)

DISMISSAL WITHOUT A HEARING ON PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS ERROR.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the dismissal without a hearing of mother's petition for modification of the custody arrangement was error:

In her petition, the mother alleged, among other things, that the father was charged with reckless endangerment, vehicular assault and driving while intoxicated after he crashed a car in January 2015, thereby causing injury to himself and his three passengers. The mother also alleged that the father engaged in a course of conduct that alienated the children from her, that the children desired to spend more time with her and that her work schedule had become more flexible since completing her medical residency. If established after a hearing, these allegations could afford a basis for modifying the prior custodial arrangement and, thus, Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without first conducting a hearing … . Given that the mother's petition places both legal and physical custody in issue, we further note that if, after a hearing, the mother makes the requisite showing of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a best interests inquiry and Family Court determines that joint legal custody is not feasible, it is “'incumbent upon Family Court to determine a custodial arrangement based upon the best interests of the child[ren] despite the absence' of a petition definitively seeking sole custody” … . Matter of Engelhart v Bowman, 2016 NY Slip Op 04294, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

FAMILY LAW (DISMISSAL WITHOUT A HEARING OF PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS ERROR)/CUSTODY (DISMISSAL WITHOUT A HEARING OF PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS ERROR)

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