You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES DOING THE SAME WORK, EMPLOYING SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE, AND OPERATING FROM THE SAME ADDRESS.

The Third Department determined that the unemployment insurance experience ratings of businesses which had ceased operation and then reopened under new names were properly transferred to the new businesses:

 

Labor Law § 581 (7) (a) (1) states that “[i]f an employer transfers its organization, trade or business, or a portion thereof, to another employer and, at the time of the transfer, there is at least a ten percent common ownership, management or control of the two employers, then the unemployment experience attributable to the transferred organization, trade or business shall be transferred to the employer to whom such organization, trade or business is so transferred,” and “[f]or purposes of this subdivision ‘organization, trade or business’ shall include the employer’s workforce.” Matter of Prod. Processing Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00565, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES)/LABOR LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES)

CONSULTANT HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of RMC, an educational research firm which contracted with the NYC Department of Education. Pursuant to a “consultancy agreement,” claimant was hired to evaluate teachers who had been given unsatisfactory ratings:

 

… [C]laimant was required as part of RMC’s hiring process to submit an application, undergo an interview and provide references. Once hired and after signing the consultant agreement, he received six hours of training, was paid a hourly rate set by RMC, was expected to work three to four hours per week for a total of 36 weeks during the 10-week assignment and submitted a voucher provided by RMC on the 15th of each month to receive payment for hours worked. Notably, claimant was paid for services rendered regardless of whether RMC received payment from the client. Moreover, RMC’s name appeared at the top of the documents that claimant was required to prepare and it determined their format. Furthermore, during the course of his assignment, claimant interacted with RMC’s project director who reviewed his observation reports for comprehensiveness, clarity, spelling and grammar. Any complaints about claimant’s performance or that of the other peer observers were directed to RMC, and it arranged for a replacement if an assignment could not be completed. Matter of Strauss (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00561, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CONSULTED HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a part-time aerobics instructor at a fitness club (Synchronicity) was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

 

Here, the evidence in the record reflects that Synchronicity established the fees that members of its fitness club were required to pay for their membership and claimant’s aerobics classes. Members would pay those fees to Synchronicity directly; claimant never collected money from any of the club’s members or charged them for attending her aerobics classes. While there is evidence that claimant’s rate of pay was negotiated, the record also reflects that all instructors at the fitness club were paid the same amount and were directly paid by check from Synchronicity once a week. While claimant would bring some of her own fitness equipment for her classes, including music and Pilates equipment, Synchronicity also provided her with an instruction room and made certain fitness equipment available to her, such as steps and free weights. Further, claimant was not allowed to solicit members of the club to attend classes that she offered at other fitness clubs. Matter of Raynor (Commissioner of Labor) 2016 NY Slip Op 00558, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

LANDLORD ACCEPTED TENANT’S SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, found plaintiffs-landlord had accepted defendant-tenant’s surrender of the premises by operation of law. The tenant, upon sufficient notice to the landlord, had moved most of its operation to a new location but continued to pay rent. The landlord then rented parts of the premises to two new tenants and changed the locks so defendant could not access the premises. At that point the tenant stopped paying rent and the landlord sued for the rent for the remaining portion of the lease. The court explained the elements of “surrender by operation of law:”

 

“A surrender by operation of law occurs when the parties to a lease both do some act so inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship that it indicates their intent to deem the lease terminated” … . A surrender by operation of law is inferred from the conduct of the parties, namely, the tenant’s abandonment of the demised premises and the landlord’s acceptance thereof; whether a surrender by operation of law has occurred in a particular case is generally a factual determination … .

Here, defendant established that plaintiffs relet parts of the premises without notice to defendant and refused to provide defendant with a key to the remaining premises, after having changed the locks. Plaintiffs also placed all the utility accounts in their own names. Plaintiffs’ assertion that a question of fact was raised as to whether there was construction in the leased premises precluding defendant’s use is unavailing. By their own account, plaintiffs refused to provide defendant with new keys and access to the “area in question” due to “ongoing construction” and liability concerns. Whether or not plaintiffs were simply replacing a generator outside the leased premises does not alter their refusal to allow defendant access to the premises. Nor do we overlook the fact that, in their complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover the full rent payable under the lease, without offset for rent received from the two new tenants … . Fragomeni v Aim Servs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00563, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (SURRENDER BY OPERATION OF LAW)/SURRENDER BY OPERATION OF LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT)

,

ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON UPSTATE LAND WITHIN THE NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROPERLY DISMISSED; UNIQUE LAW RE: MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT EXPLAINED.

In an action seeking rescission of a conservation easement which restricts development on upstate land within the watershed for New York City, the Third Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and explained the unique law which pertains to the modification or extinguishment of a conservation easement:

 

“Conservation easements are of a character wholly distinct from the easements traditionally recognized at common law and are excepted from many of the defenses that would defeat a common-law easement” (… see ECL 49-0305 [2], [5]…). Pursuant to ECL 49-0307 (1), “[a] conservation easement held by a not-for-profit conservation organization may only be modified or extinguished” (1) pursuant to the terms of the instrument creating the easement, (2) in a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 1951, or (3) by eminent domain. Notably, ECL 49-0307 provides the exclusive means by which a conservation easement may be modified or extinguished (see ECL 49-0305 [2]). Argyle Farm & Props., LLC v Watershed Agric. Council of the N.Y. City Watersheds, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00559, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (CONSERVATION EASEMENT, UNIQUE LAW APPLICABLE TO MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT)/EASEMENTS (CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, UNIQUE LAW APPLICABLE TO MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT)/CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT)

THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON A PARTY WALL EXCEEDED ANY EASEMENT THAT MIGHT ARISE FROM THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTY WALL.

A wall separating plaintiff’s (NYCAR’s) and defendant’s property was located entirely on NYCAR’s property. Defendant installed light fixtures on the wall for commercial purposes (an outdoor eating area for defendant’s restaurant). The defendant also installed a door in the wall to act as an emergency exit for patrons of the restaurant. Defendant argued the wall was a party wall and the easement which accompanies a party wall allowed the installation of fixtures on the wall. The Third Department explained that the installation of fixtures on the wall exceeded any easement which might exist:

 

Defendant concedes that the survey that plaintiff submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment shows that the wall lies wholly on NYSARC’s property, but argues that defendant’s installation of the fixtures and utilities was nevertheless proper because it is a party wall. “‘A party wall is generally described as a wall erected between two adjoining pieces of property and used for the common advantage of both owners'” … . Party walls are often located on the boundary line between parcels, in which case the portion of the wall on each property belongs to that parcel’s owner, subject to an easement in the other building’s owner for its support … . A party wall, however, may also “belong[] entirely to one of the adjoining owners, but [be] subject to an easement or right in the other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between the two tenements” … .

Here, defendant’s actions were beyond the scope of a party wall easement; the fixtures and utilities that defendant placed on the exposed eastern portion of the wall neither provided support to defendant’s building nor contributed in any way to the maintenance of a dividing wall between the buildings. Instead, they were installed solely for defendant’s “mere convenience or advantage” in operating its restaurant … . Stamp v 301 Franklin St. Café, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00410, 3rd Dept. 1-21-16

 

REAL PROPERTY (PARTY WALL, EASEMENT EXCEEDED BY INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE WALL)/PARTY WALL (EASEMENT EXCEEDED BY INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE WALL)/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTY WALL WAS EXCEEDED BY THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE WALL)

,

SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON THE GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAD NOT YET BEEN FOUND.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined a sex offender could not be kept in prison after he had served his maximum sentence on the ground that suitable housing had not yet been found:

 

There is no dispute here that, due to petitioner’s status as a risk level III sex offender, his release was subject to the mandatory condition that he have suitable housing located more than 1,000 feet from school grounds (see Executive Law § 259-c [14]…). Further, petitioner concedes that the Board of Parole (hereinafter the Board) was authorized to order, on January 15, 2015, that he be transferred to an RTF [residential treatment facility] (see Penal Law § 70.45 [3]; Correction Law § 73 [10]). In response to the petition, respondents explain that petitioner was assigned, but never actually transferred, to Woodbourne Correctional Facility, an RTF, due to an unspecified mental health condition … . Accordingly, there is no dispute that petitioner remained confined in a maximum security correctional facility for more than eight months past the expiration of his three-year determinate sentence. Respondents provide no convincing authority for this unilateral decision, nor do we discern any.

We have previously held that the Board has discretion to deny parole release to an inmate who has not secured an approved residence on his or her conditional release date … . In contrast, we recently held that DOCCS does not have the authority to retain an inmate beyond the inmate’s maximum expiration date in order to finalize the terms of PRS [postrelease supervision], because it was conclusively bound by the sentence and commitment order … . … [W]e find that when a risk level III sex offender reaches his or her maximum expiration date, DOCCS must release the individual to either an approved residence or to an RTF. Where an individual needs mental health treatment not otherwise available at an RTF, DOCCS must, prior to the release date, seek a court order authorizing continued hospitalization pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 or admission to a secure detention facility pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (see Correction Law § 404). People ex rel. Green v Superintendent of Sullivan Corr. Facility, 2016 NY Slip Op 00417, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND)/SEX OFFENDERS (SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND)/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND)

,

EVIDENCE OF AN UNRELATED DRUG SALE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction in a drug-sale case because evidence of a prior unrelated drug sale was allowed to be introduced. There was no issue in the case to which the prior crime pertained. The evidence was not necessary to demonstrate defendant’s motive. The prejudicial effect of the evidence, therefore, outweighed its probative value:

 

Evidence of prior bad acts or uncharged crimes may be admissible to show motive to commit a crime under one of the traditional Molineux exceptions — where the probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect … . That said, “there is usually no issue of motive in a drug sale case, as the seller’s motivation is nearly always financial gain” … . Moreover, “evidence of similar uncharged crimes has probative value, but as a general rule it is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters or to convict a defendant because of his [or her] past” … . The [evidence in question] is highly suggestive of an illicit drug transaction, and it is difficult to discern any relevant impact other than to show defendant’s criminal propensity. As this case largely turned on [a witness’] credibility, we cannot characterize the error in admitting this evidence as harmless, notwithstanding County Court’s curative instruction … . People v Magee, 2016 NY Slip Op 00399, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/MOLINEUX (EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

WHERE A WITNESS STATES SHE DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT.

The Third Department determined County Court properly denied defense counsel’s request to enter the victim’s statement in evidence as a prior inconsistent statement. The court explained that, where a witness states she does not recall making a statement, it is necessary to call a witness who was present when the statement was made to lay a proper foundation for admission. The court also noted that the statement was not so inconsistent with the witness’ testimony as to warrant its use in cross-examination. With respect to the foundation for the evidence, the court wrote:

 

“It is well established that a witness’ prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach his [or her] trial testimony [a]nd the test of inconsistency . . . is not limited to outright contradictions between a witness’ prior statements and his [or her] trial testimony” … . However, before a witness may be impeached with such a statement, a proper foundation must be laid … , and, “[i]f the witness denies that the statement was made or does not remember making it, he or she may be impeached by the testimony of others who heard the statement” … .

Here, while cross-examining the victim at trial, defense counsel questioned her about the statement that she gave to State Trooper Joseph Smith several hours after the attack occurred. Specifically, counsel asked the victim if she remembered giving a statement to Smith, to which she said, “I don’t recall. I don’t remember a lot.” Counsel then asked, “You don’t remember giving a statement?” to which the victim answered, “I remember giving a statement, yes, I do, but everything was jumbled.” Counsel then asked if the victim remembered telling Smith that she was sleeping on the couch just before the altercation. The victim denied making such statement and explained that she told Smith that she was lying on the couch trying to go to sleep. After being shown the statement by counsel, the victim confirmed that it was, in fact, the statement she vaguely recalled being read to her by Smith and that she had signed. Defendant then unsuccessfully attempted to offer the victim’s statement into evidence. County Court sustained the People’s hearsay objection, noting that Smith was available to be called as a witness and questioned with regard to the victim’s statement. Inasmuch as defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of this hearsay evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s ruling. People v Maxam, 2016 NY Slip Op 00391, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT)/PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION)

INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

The Third Department determined claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, was an employee of Language Services Associates, Inc. (LSA), not an independent contractor:

 

The record establishes that LSA advertises for interpreters, like claimant, to provide translation services to its clients. Interpreters are screened for their experience and, if approved by LSA following an interview, they are placed on a roster for future assignments. Clients contact LSA directly to request the services of an interpreter, at which point LSA decides who to call from its pool of interpreters. Although interpreters are free to decline assignments, there was testimony that they are not permitted to substitute someone else in their place once an assignment is accepted. LSA provides interpreters with the requisite information for accepted assignments, and interpreters are advised by LSA, not the client, of any changes in assignments. Moreover, interpreters are prohibited from accepting future assignments from a client without obtaining LSA’s permission and are subject to penalties for arriving late or failing to appear for an assignment without providing LSA with notice and a reasonable explanation. LSA requires interpreters to submit invoices detailing the hours worked for each in-person interpretation assignment, pays interpreters directly and reimburses them for transportation expenses associated with assignments.

The record further reflects that LSA records and monitors telephone interpretation services to ensure that interpreters are adequately performing their services. To that end, LSA assigned interpreters, including claimant, to evaluate other interpreters’ telephone services. Claimant herself received feedback and instructions from LSA on how to improve her services, and she conducted, at LSA’s request, numerous evaluations of other interpreters’ services. Based upon these evaluations, interpreters are given a rating that could affect whether an interpreter receives future assignments from LSA. Matter of Soo Tsui (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00229, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE)/INTERPRETERS (UNEMPLOYEMENT INSURANCE, INTERPRETERS WERE EMPLOYEES)

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