You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE) ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined plaintiff-employer was entitled to summary judgment on both liability and damages in this “disloyal or faithless performance of employment duties” case. Defendant-employee stole $50,000 from his employer. The employer sought recovery of the compensation paid to the employee over the six-year period of the theft and relief from the obligation to provide health insurance. Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability but ruled the employee's otherwise unblemished career raised a question of fact about damages. The Third Department held Supreme Court's damages ruling was error:

New York law with respect to the disloyal or faithless performance of employment duties has developed for well over a century. Firmly rooted in this state's jurisprudence is the principle that “an employee is to be loyal to his [or her] employer and is 'prohibited from acting in any manner inconsistent with his [or her] agency or trust and is at all times bound to exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in the performance of his [or her] duties'” … . Under what is commonly referred to as the faithless servant doctrine, “[o]ne who owes a duty of fidelity to a principal and who is faithless in the performance of his [or her] services is generally disentitled to recover his [or her] compensation, whether commissions or salary” … . Thus, where an employee “engage[s] in repeated acts of disloyalty, complete and permanent forfeiture of compensation, deferred or otherwise, is warranted” … . * * *

The Court of Appeals has made clear that forfeiture of compensation is required even when some or all of “the services were beneficial to the principal or [when] the principal suffered no provable damage as a result of the breach of fidelity by the agent” … . City of Binghamton v Whalen, 2016 NY Slip Op 04289, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT)/DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT)/FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE (DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES ENTITLED EMPLOYER TO THE RETURN OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE THEFT)

,

PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Third Department reversed defendant's conviction in the interest of justice because of prosecutorial misconduct in summation:

Counsel is afforded wide latitude during summations, but when a prosecutor's remarks are so egregious such that they deprive a defendant of a fair trial, reversal is warranted … . During his summation, the prosecutor remarked that defendant failed to provide an “innocent explanation” for his actions or that it was necessary for him to do so. Indeed, a recurring and substantial theme in the prosecutor's summation was defendant's inability to provide an innocent explanation for his conduct following the incident giving rise to the charges against him or for the presence of incriminating evidence at the crime scene. We agree with defendant that these comments improperly shifted the burden of proof from the People to defendant … . People v Rupnarine, 2016 NY Slip Op 04257, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

,

CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined the evidence was not sufficient to support defendant's conviction of conspiracy in the second degree in this drug-sale case. In addition, the Third Department explained the proof required for criminal sale of a controlled substance where the evidence is primarily recorded phone calls and text messages:

“A person is guilty of conspiracy in the second degree when, with intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed, he [or she] agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct” (Penal Law § 105.15). Notably, “[a] person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless an overt act is alleged and proved to have been committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy” (Penal Law § 105.20 …).

At the joint trial, the People sought to convict [co-defendant] Wright of [criminal sale of a controlled substance second degree] based solely upon recorded telephone conversations between [Wright and defendant], in which Wright allegedly agreed to sell heroin to defendant. However, during those conversations, defendant equivocated as to how much heroin he sought to buy, and none of the heroin from the transaction was recovered by police. As a result, the People failed to independently establish that the weight of the heroin sold exceeded the statutory threshold … and, in turn, they failed to prove an alleged overt act by defendant or Wright in support of the conspiracy charge … . * * *

Where, as here, the People primarily rely on intercepted telephone conversations as evidence of a sale of drugs (see Penal Law §§ 220.00 [1]; 220.39 [1]), all that [is required] is the production of “some additional evidence establishing the existence of [the drug in question] to support [defendant's] convictions for [its sale]” … . People v Cochran, 2016 NY Slip Op 04255, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED)/CONSPIRACY (CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED)

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's (Costello's) statement in this slip and fall case, coupled with her affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, created a question of fact about the cause of her fall:

We reject defendant's argument that Costello will be unable to demonstrate proximate cause in this matter because she was unable, or perhaps unwilling, to immediately ascertain the cause of her fall. Defendant asserts that Costello was equivocal about the cause, based upon her statement that she “believe[d]” that the flooring was bowed. Even assuming that Costello's use, on one occasion, of what might be characterized as a mere figure of speech may be read as an expression of uncertainty about the cause of her fall, her affidavit clarifies any ambiguity. In her affidavit, Costello asserted that the “wood floor . . . was bowed and did not provide [her] with a proper walking surface.” Read together with the testimony of the two nonparty witnesses regarding the uneven, grooved state of the floor, there is adequate record proof to “render other causes [of her fall] sufficiently remote such that the jury [could] base its verdict on logical inferences drawn from the evidence, not merely on speculation” Costello v Pizzeria Uno of Albany, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04087, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL)

,

MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined the village mayor did not have the authority to ignore the ruling of a hearing officer who found petitioner, a former firefighter, was entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a benefits based upon an on-the-job injury. When the mayor appointed the hearing officer, there was no indication the hearing officer's finding was merely advisory:

Based on the record, we conclude that Supreme Court's initial finding that the Village was not bound by the Hearing Officer's determination was in error. First, and contrary to respondents' argument, without any statutory or negotiated prohibition or direction, the Village was authorized to delegate its decision-making authority to the Hearing Officer … .  Second, that the Mayor did, in fact, appoint the Hearing Officer to make a final determination and not a recommendation is apparent from the record before us. Neither the 2010 nor the 2012 appointment was in any way qualified so as to limit the respective Hearing Officers to an advisory role.  Matter of McKay v Village of Endicott, 2016 NY Slip Op 04085, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)

, ,

EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO SAVE A TIME-BARRED CLAIM.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not have been invoked to save a time-barred claim to real property. The real property was the subject of a 1977 will which placed the property in trust for decedent's children and named defendant executor. In 1988 the property was conveyed to the defendant, but the will was never amended. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that defendant's executor-status and familial ties created a fiduciary relationship, requiring defendant to notify plaintiffs of the 1988 transfer. The Third Department held the appointment as executor did not create a fiduciary relationship (prior to death), and the familial relationship, as well, did not create a fiduciary relationship. Therefore, the Third Department ruled, the defendant was not barred, by equitable estoppel, from asserting the statute of limitations defense:

Supreme Court recognized that “concealment without actual misrepresentation may form the basis for invocation of the doctrine [of equitable estoppel] if 'there was a fiduciary relationship which gave [the] defendant an obligation to inform [the] plaintiff of facts underlying the claim'” … . Here, the court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty to disclose the conveyance when it occurred in 1988 because of her nomination as executor-trustee in the 1977 will, as well as their familial relationship.

We note, however, that the existence of a familial relationship does not equate to a fiduciary relationship for equitable estoppel purposes … . Nor does the mere fact that a will has nominated an executor, in and of itself, create a fiduciary relationship between the nominee and the will's beneficiaries. Indeed, because of the ambulatory nature of a will, a nominated executor is prohibited from acting in a fiduciary capacity until the testator dies … . Similarly, “a testamentary trust cannot become effective prior to the testator's death” … . Picard v Fish, 2016 NY Slip Op 04086, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO BAR A TIME-BARRED CLAIM)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO BAR A TIME-BARRED CLAIM)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO BAR A TIME-BARRED CLAIM)

,

WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should have compelled arbitration of the dismissal of a probationary employee (Woods). The court deemed the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) ambiguous about whether the dismissal of a probationary employee constituted “discipline” within the meaning of the CBA. Therefore it should have been left to the arbitrator to decide whether the CBA governs the dismissal:

Contrary to respondents' interpretation, we do not find that the cited provision of the CBA unambiguously excludes Woods from its coverage. Indeed, it can be read to wholly supplant the referenced provisions of the Civil Service Law and to require a demonstration of “just cause” to discipline any employee in the bargaining unit. While the dissent has concluded that Woods was not disciplined, it is for an arbitrator to interpret and apply the CBA, and we do not have authority to consider the merits of the argument … . Since the CBA provision is ambiguous, an arbitrator must decide whether it governs Woods' dismissal from service, and Supreme Court should have granted the petition to compel arbitration … . Matter of Woods v State Univ. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 04084, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

ARBITRATION (WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/UNIONS (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)

INJURY IN FALL IN EMPLOYER’S PARKING LAW AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT.

The Third Department determined injury from a trip and fall in the employer's parking lot was covered under the Workers' Compensation Law:

“To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must have arisen both out of and in the course of a claimant's employment” … . Moreover, “[w]hile on the employer's premises, going to or coming from work is generally considered an incident of the employment” … .

Here, the record reveals that claimant tripped and fell in the employer's parking lot as she was preparing to leave at the end of her shift. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment … . Matter of Swartz v Absolut Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab, 2016 NY Slip Op 03937, 3rd Dept 5-19-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW (INJURY IN FALL IN EMPLOYER'S PARKING LAW AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT)

COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM.

The Third Department determined a prisoner's lawsuit alleging false imprisonment based upon mistakes in sentencing was properly dismissed because the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction:

“While jurisdiction reposes in the Court of Claims where the essential nature of the claim against defendant is to recover money, it does not lie where monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” … . Here, we agree with the Court of Claims that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on claimant's false imprisonment claim, inasmuch as his primary argument is that he is currently being confined unlawfully due to errors in resentencing and that any claim for related damages is incidental to this primary argument. Therefore, the claim for false imprisonment was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Jackson v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03938, 3rd Dept 5-19-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM)/COURT OF CLAIMS (COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM)

STATUTE REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACCIDENT DID NOT REQUIRE NOTICE OF ALL THE INJURIES STEMMING FROM THE ACCIDENT.

The Third Department determined the statute requiring notice of an accident did not require notice of all the injuries. Here the self-insured employer was timely notified of the accident and claimant's knee injury but was not notified of other injuries stemming from the accident until a year later:

Workers' Compensation Law § 18 provides, in relevant part, that written “[n]otice of an injury . . . for which compensation is payable . . . shall be given to the employer within thirty days after the accident causing the injury.” The same provision also provides that the Board may excuse late notice upon certain grounds, including “that the employer, or his or its agents . . . had knowledge of the accident.” Here, the self-insured employer was provided with notice of the accident and claimant's resulting left knee injury within the statutory 30-day period, but was unaware of claimant's other injuries until nearly a year later when she filed her C-3 claim. The self-insured employer contends that this Court should construe the statutory phrase “had knowledge of the accident” to mean “had knowledge of the injury,” and, as a result, conclude that claimant's late notice for the additional injuries is inexcusable pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 18. We reject the self-insured employer's interpretation of Workers' Compensation Law § 18, as it contravenes two foundational rules of statutory construction. Matter of Logan v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03776, 3rd Dept 5-12-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW (STATUTE REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACCIDENT DID NOT REQUIRE NOTICE OF ALL THE INJURIES STEMMING FROM THE ACCIDENT)

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