You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court Act 812 Does Not Necessarily Involve Sexual Intimacy

An “intimate relationship” (Family Court Act 812) must exist before one party to the relationship can petition Family Court seeking relief based upon family offenses. The Third Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed the petition on the ground that one party identified as heterosexual and the other as homosexual, indicating there was no sexual relationship. Sexual intimacy is not required to establish an “intimate relationship” under the Family Court Act. On the other hand, cohabitation, standing alone, is not enough. The matter was sent back for a determination (re: the existence of an “intimate relationship”) applying he statutory factors:

… [W]e agree with petitioner that her implicit acknowledgment that she had not had a sexual relationship with respondent did not justify Family Court ruling, as a matter of law, that the two did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 812 (1) (e). Initially, “the governing rule of statutory construction is that courts are obliged to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Turning to the relevant provision, Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction includes family offense petitions involving people who are or were previously engaged in an “intimate relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Factors relevant to determining the existence of an intimate relationship “include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…).

Considering these enumerated factors, the Legislature unambiguously established that the phrase “intimate relationship” is not limited to relationships that include sexual intimacy (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…). Matter of Arita v Goodman, 2015 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tolled Until Fiduciary’s Roles Terminated

In an action against a fiduciary stemming from the distribution of an estate, Supreme Court determined the six-year statute of limitations applied to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and precluded any evidence from prior to 2007.  The Third Department agreed that the six-year statute was the correct one, but held that the statute never started running because the fiduciary’s roles were never terminated. Therefore pre-2007 evidence was not precluded:

Although “New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims [and] the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks” …, the parties do not dispute that a six-year period applies to these two remaining causes of action. However, the statute of limitations for a claim alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is tolled until there has been an open repudiation by the fiduciary or the relationship has otherwise been clearly terminated … .

There is nothing in this record indicating that respondents’ relevant fiduciary roles have terminated. Although many of the actions about which petitioners complain were done openly, petitioners also allege that they were repeatedly assured that such actions were ultimately in their best interests. The amended petition alleges that respondents have not to date repudiated their positions as fiduciaries. That allegation is not denied in this pre-answer motion, which was supported only by an attorney’s affirmation and memorandum of law. Matter of Therm, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07732, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity Acknowledgment Precluded Vacation of the Acknowledgment

The Third Department noted that petitioner, in his petition to vacate his acknowledgment of paternity, stated that he signed the acknowledgment in spite of his being aware the child was not his. Therefore, his signature was not procured by fraud and the petition did not state a ground for vacation:

“Once 60 days have elapsed following the execution of an acknowledgment of paternity, the mother or acknowledged father may challenge that document in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden of proof on the party challenging the voluntary acknowledgment” … . To establish material mistake of fact, a party must demonstrate that such mistake “was truly material — i.e., substantial and fundamental to the nature of the [acknowledgment] — so as to entitle a party to void that document” … . To establish fraud, a petitioner must show that he or she justifiably relied on the respondent’s fraudulent statements or representations at the time the acknowledgment of paternity was signed … .

Here, in his petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, petitioner alleged that his signature was procured either by material mistake of fact or fraud based upon respondent’s history of infidelity. However, the petition also explained that petitioner put his name on the birth certificate of the child “despite all parties acknowledging that it was [another man’s] child.” Because petitioner’s claim that he knew that he was not the father of the child negates a finding of fraud or material mistake of fact, as such findings are necessarily predicated on a lack of knowledge … , petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts constituting fraud or material mistake of fact … . Matter of Joshua AA. v Jessica BB., 2015 NY Slip Op 07718, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

Dismissal of Criminal Case Did Not Collaterally Estop Civil Case Based Upon the Same Forged-Deed Allegation/No Statute of Limitations Applies to Case Based Upon Forged-Deed Allegation

In an action based upon the allegation the signature on a deed was forged, the Third Department determined no statute of limitations applies to forged deeds which are void ab initio and the dismissal of a Spanish criminal case based upon the forged-deed allegation did not collaterally estop the New York civil action:

We agree with plaintiffs that they are not collaterally estopped from maintaining this action. It is well established that “dismissal of a criminal charge . . . does not generally constitute collateral estoppel in relation to a civil action because of the difference in the burden of proof to establish the factual issues” … . Indeed, the Spanish court dismissed the Spanish criminal action “without prejudice,” expressly permitting the matter to “be referred to civil jurisdiction.” Inasmuch as this dismissal of the Spanish criminal action did not conclusively establish whether the signature was forged, and did not preclude plaintiffs from commencing a similar civil action, defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of proving “that this identical issue was necessarily decided in the [prior action] and is conclusive in the [present] action” … .

Nor should plaintiffs’ action have been deemed time-barred by the statute of limitations. While the limitations period for a cause of action sounding in fraud is the greater of six years after the cause of action accrued or two years after it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]), the Court of Appeals has recently held that this period does not apply when the particular species of fraud alleged is the forgery of a deed. The Court found that, unlike other fraud-based causes of action, “a claim against a forged deed is not subject to a statute of limitations defense” because of “the clarity of our law that a forged deed is void ab initio, and that it is a document without legal capacity to have any effect on ownership rights” … . Mazo v Mazo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07721, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Zoning Board Applied an Incorrect Definition of a Term in a Zoning Ordinance—Court Has the Power to Impose Its Own Interpretation as a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined that the town’s zoning board of appeals did not apply the correct definition of a “neighborhood place of worship” when it denied petitioner’s application to convert a day spa to a “mikvah” in an area zoned for “neighborhood places of worship.” Submitted papers demonstrated that immersion in the waters of a mikvah is a basic religious ritual for Orthodox Jews and involves the recitation of blessings or prayers. Because the matter necessitated the interpretation of the terms of a zoning ordinance, the court need not defer to the zoning board’s interpretation:

The parties agree that the term “neighborhood place of worship” is neither defined in the Town’s zoning law, nor does it appear elsewhere in the Town’s ordinances. The zoning law does provide, however, that “[w]ords not specifically defined shall have their ordinary dictionary meanings” (Town of Mamakating Zoning Code § 199-6 [A]). Thus, the pertinent inquiry distills to whether petitioner’s proposed mikvah comports with the dictionary definition of a neighborhood place of worship. Although courts will ordinarily defer to a zoning board’s interpretation of a local ordinance, when “the issue presented is one of pure legal interpretation of the underlying zoning law or ordinance, deference is not required” … . The issue posed is susceptible to resolution as a matter of law by interpretation of the ordinance terms. Matter of Winterton Props., LLC v Town of Mamakating Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 07734, 3rd Dept 10-221-5

 

,

Hearsay Supporting Child Abuse Report Seriously Controverted—Report Expunged

The Third Department determined a report maintained by the central register of child abuse and maltreatment should have been amended to state “unfounded” and expunged. Mother brought an Article 78 petition to amend the report, which stated abuse was “indicated.” The Third Department found that the hearsay evidence in support of the report was seriously controverted by the petitioner’s evidence, which included expert evidence about the cause of the child’s broken leg:

“To establish maltreatment, the agency was required to show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the physical, mental or emotional condition of the child had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired because of a failure by petitioner to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with appropriate supervision or guardianship” … . As there is no dispute that the child suffered a broken leg, there can be no question that her physical condition was in fact impaired. Accordingly, our inquiry distills to whether the record supports a finding that such impairment was the result of petitioner’s failure to provide appropriate supervision and guardianship.

In this regard, the evidence against petitioner consisted primarily of the investigation progress notes, which summarized the caseworker’s interviews with, among others, petitioner’s son, the child’s treating orthopedic surgeon and the child’s geneticist. “[T]here is no question that hearsay is admissible in expungement hearings and, if sufficiently relevant and probative, may constitute substantial evidence to support the underlying determination” … . That said, the substantial evidence standard is not satisfied where, as here, the hearsay evidence at issue is “seriously controverted” … . Matter of Gwen Y. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2015 NY Slip Op 07710, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

The Precise Terms of the Stipulation Were Not Demonstrated to Have Been Violated—Contempt Finding Improper

The Third Department determined the wife was improperly held in contempt re: a stipulation about refinancing the marital residence. The stipulation required that the wife make a good faith effort to refinance, but did not address the consequences of a failed attempt. By finding the wife in contempt for failing to refinance, the court improperly re-wrote the stipulation:

“To sustain a civil contempt finding based upon the violation of a court order, it must be established that there was a lawful court order in effect that clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, that the person who allegedly violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that his or her actions or failure to act defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a right of the moving party” … . Such violation, in turn, “must be established by clear and convincing evidence” … . “The decision of whether to hold in contempt a party who fails to comply with a court order rests within the court’s sound discretion” … .

Here, a review of the underlying order makes clear that Supreme Court found the wife to be in contempt of the parties’ April 2012 stipulation based upon her failure to refinance the marital residence “as agreed or otherwise take action to remove [the husband’s] name from the existing mortgage.” The parties’ stipulation, however, did not require the wife to successfully refinance the marital residence and remove the husband’s name from the existing mortgage; rather, the stipulation only imposed upon her the obligation to “make a good faith effort to obtain [such] financing . . . and remove [the husband’s] name from the mortgage within 45 days after receiving the [quitclaim deed].” Notably, the stipulation was silent as to the parties’ respective rights and obligations in the event that the wife attempted — but did not actually succeed — in obtaining such financing … and, by directing the sale of the marital residence in the event that the wife did not obtain refinancing within a specified time period, Supreme Court essentially revised the parties’ agreement to supply a solution to a problem that, on the face of the agreement, the parties themselves apparently did not contemplate. Howe v Howe, 2015 NY Slip Op 07709, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

SAFE Act Restrictions on Ownership of Assault Rifles and Ammunition Feeding Devices Constitutional

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined that the restrictions on ownership of assault rifles and ammunition feeding devices in the “SAFE Act” furthered the substantial, compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention and, therefore, are constitutional:

We will accept, for purposes of discussion, that the SAFE Act substantially burdens the right to keep and bear arms so as to subject it to Second Amendment scrutiny … . We will also assume, although it is debatable, that the weapons and feeding devices addressed by the SAFE Act are not the type of dangerous and exotic weaponry that merit no Second Amendment protection … . The question accordingly becomes whether the challenged provisions survive intermediate scrutiny, namely, whether they “bear[] a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental objective” … .

With regard to the objective pursued, “New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention” … . [Plaintiffs] provided no proof to call the well-established premise behind the challenged provisions into question, namely, that the governmental interest in public safety is substantially furthered by reducing access to weapons designed to quickly fire significant amounts of ammunition and the ammunition feeding devices required to hold that ammunition … . Thus, we agree with Supreme Court that “[t]he core prohibitions . . . of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines [contained in the SAFE Act] do not violate the Second Amendment”… . Schulz v State of New York Exec., Andrew Cuomo, Governor, 2015 NY Slip Op 07728, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Records of a Police Investigation of a Police Officer Who Has Been Terminated Are Not “Personnel Records” Subject to Exemption from Disclosure Pursuant to the “Personnel Records” Provision of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

The Third Department determined that the personnel records associated with the investigation of an off-duty police officer’s involvement in a hit and run accident were generally exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (as police “personnel records”). However, the investigation continued after the officer’s employment was terminated. The records of the post-termination investigation were not “personnel records” and, therefore, were not exempt from disclosure under the “personnel records” provision:

As is relevant here, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) exempts from disclosure the “personnel records” of police officers that are “used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion.” …

Proof that information was generated for the purpose of assessing an employee’s alleged misconduct brings that information within the protection of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) … . This does not end our inquiry, however, because uncontested evidence established that respondent’s investigation of Beardsley continued after he had resigned as an employee of respondent. We agree with petitioners that police departments who investigate persons who are no longer their employees are not conducting investigations of “personnel” within the meaning of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1). The plain meaning of the word personnel identifies individuals with some current employment relationship with an organization. This meaning of personnel is further confirmed by the statute, as individuals who are not current employees cannot be considered for either “continued employment or promotion” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a [1]). Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in finding that respondent met its burden of establishing that the materials resulting from its investigation after Beardsley had resigned were for the purpose of assessing his continued employment or promotion and that, as a result, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) provided confidentiality to such materials. Matter of Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 2015 NY Slip Op 07729, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

The State’s “Donate Life Registry” (Re: Consent to Organ Donation) Is a Governmental, Not Proprietary, Function

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the “donate life registry,” which is based upon consent to organ donation indicated on driver’s license renewal applications, was a governmental, not a proprietary, function. Therefore the state may not be held liable for negligence with respect to organ donation absent a special relationship. No special relationship was alleged here. The lawsuit alleged claimant’s mother did not consent to the donation of her organs and that the Department of Health negligently interpreted a drawn line on the renewal application as a signature. The Court of Claims had upheld the “violation of the right of sepulcher” cause of action. The opinion includes detailed discussions of the law surrounding governmental versus proprietary functions, as well as the nature of governmental involvement in organ donation:

Quintessential examples of purely governmental functions include police and fire protection … and traffic regulation … . On the other hand, a governmental entity acts in a purely proprietary capacity when it serves as a landlord by virtue of its ownership and maintenance of property … . In determining where along the continuum a governmental entity’s challenged conduct falls, it is necessary to examine “‘the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred'”… . * * *

By establishing the Donate Life Registry and facilitating the identification of organ and tissue donors and the making of anatomical gifts through DMV applications and renewals, defendant is protecting and promoting the health and welfare of the public through the exercise of its general police powers. It is axiomatic that “‘[p]rotecting health and safety is one of municipal government’s most important duties'”… . Drever v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07726, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

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