You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Payment of Rent Does Not Waive the Tenant’s Right to Recover Rent Paid Based Upon the Landlord’s Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

The Third Department noted that the tenant’s paying of rent did not waive the tenant’s right to recover rent payments made during the time an elevator was not yet installed. The lease agreement called for the installation of an elevator by March and it was not installed until November. The tenant was entitled to a return of the rent paid before the elevator was functioning based upon the landlord’s breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment:

The case law makes clear that a tenant’s “payment of all required rent is a condition precedent to the maintenance of . . . an action” for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment … . Hence, plaintiff’s payment of rent during the months in question cannot be deemed to be a waiver of its rights under this portion of the lease. City of Troy, N.Y. v 1776 Sixth Ave., Troy, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08236, 3rd Dept 11-12-15

 

,

Claimant Who Cannot Afford Child Care Is Unavailable for Work and Is Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The Third Department determined the claimant, who stopped working to care for her child, was not “available for work” under the Labor Law and was not, therefore, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 591 (2), a claimant will not be deemed eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits if he or she is “not ready, willing and able to work in his [or her] usual employment or in any other for which he [or she] is reasonably fitted by training and experience.” A claimant who is unable to work due to the lack of child-care arrangements may be considered to be unavailable for work for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . Here, it is undisputed that claimant left her job to care for her son and she testified that, after she did so, her mother-in-law moved away and her husband took a job with long hours that precluded her from relying upon them for childcare. She further stated that she could not afford to put her son in day care and that he could not be placed in a Head Start program until he was three years old. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was unavailable for work. Matter of Peek (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08029, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

,

Finding by Workers’ Compensation Board that Corrections Officer’s Condition Was Work-Related Did Not Automatically Entitle Officer to Disability Benefits Under General Municipal Law 207-c

In upholding the county’s determination petitioner (a corrections officer) was not entitled to disability benefits under General Municipal Law 207-c., the Third Department noted that the finding by the Workers’ Compensation Board that petitioner’s condition was work-related did not, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle the petitioner to disability benefits:

Contrary to petitioner’s initial contention, it is settled law that “a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board that an injury is work-related” does not, “by operation of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle an injured employee to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits” … . Accordingly, the Board’s determination did not collaterally estop [the county] from denying petitioner’s application for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits.

Further, substantial evidence supports the determination denying petitioner benefits. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, correction officers are entitled to benefits when they are injured “in the performance of [their] duties” … , so long as they can establish the existence of a “‘direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury'” … . This Court will uphold a determination regarding a correction officer’s eligibility for benefits if such decision is supported by substantial evidence … , i.e., “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact, [which] is ‘less than a preponderance of the evidence'” … . Notably, credibility determinations are within the sole province of the Hearing Officer … . Matter of Jackson v Barber, 2015 NY Slip Op 08025, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

Sidewalk Dropoff Was a Trivial Defect

The Third Department determined the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused plaintiff to fall was trivial and, therefore, not actionable:

“An owner will not be liable . . . for negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, which may cause a pedestrian [to] merely stumble, stub his [or her] toes, or trip over a raised projection” … . * * *

There is no set point at which a height differential on a sidewalk will rise above the level of triviality and become a dangerous condition … . Instead, “[w]hether a defect is so trivial to preclude liability depends on the particular facts of each case and requires consideration of such relevant factors as the dimensions of the alleged defect and the circumstances surrounding the injury” … .

… Photographs confirm that the sidewalk dropped off in the area where claimant fell, which the former grounds manager at the university suggested may have been due to a layer of asphalt “hav[ing] peeled away in that section.” No complaints had been made about the dropoff, however, and neither the groundskeeper who cared for the area nor the grounds manager recalled noticing it before claimant was injured. There were also no actual measurements of the depth of the dropoff, and the grounds manager reviewed photographs of the condition and opined that the depth was “much less” than the two inches that claimant believed it to be. Our review of those photographs leads us to agree with the assessment of the grounds manager that the dropoff was a minimal one. Thus, the facts and circumstances established at trial support the determination of the Court of Claims that the dropoff was simply too trivial to be actionable … . Medina v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08019, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

Umpire Assumed the Risk of Being Struck by a Bat Thrown by Batter

The Third Department determined that an umpire assumed the risk of being struck by a bat thrown by a batter as he ran toward first base. Had the bat been thrown intentionally or recklessly the assumption of the risk doctrine would not apply. There was no admissible evidence the bat was thrown recklessly (in anger):

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a participant, including an umpire, in a sport such as softball “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . Such risks include getting hit with a ball or a bat during a baseball game, particularly for an experienced participant … . That said, “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others” … .

… [W]e find unpersuasive plaintiffs’ claim that getting hit with a bat is not an inherent risk in a slow pitch, 65-year-old and older softball game. Neither the age of the players nor the velocity of the pitch negates the readily apparent risk of a batter releasing the bat after a swing. The record shows that [plaintiff] has extensive experience as an umpire and no claim is made that defendant intentionally threw the bat at him. The issue distills to whether defendant recklessly threw the bat, creating a risk “‘over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'” … . Morrisey v Haskell, 2015 NY Slip Op 08021, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

, ,

Transfer of Assets to Qualify for Medicaid Constituted a Breach of the Defendants’ Contract with Plaintiff Continuing Care Retirement Community

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the defendants’ (the Yezzis’) transfer of funds in order to qualify for Medicaid constituted a breach of the contract with the plaintiff (GSV), a continuing care retirement community (CCRC), as well as a fraudulent transfer under the Debtor-Creditor Law:

… [T]he essence of the CCRC financial model requires a tradeoff between the resident and the facility, in which the resident must disclose and spend his or her assets for the services provided, while the facility must continue to provide those services for the duration of the resident’s lifetime even after private funds are exhausted and Medicaid becomes the only source of payment. With this long-term commitment, the facility necessarily must evaluate the financial feasibility of accepting a resident in the first instance.

Pertinent here, the contract provided that the Yezzis could “not transfer assets represented as available in [their] application to be a [r]esident of [GSV] for less than fair market value, unless the transfer [would] not impair [their] ability to pay [their] financial obligations to [GSV].” The contract further required the Yezzis to “make every reasonable effort to meet [their] financial obligations” to GSV and prohibited them from making “any transfers or gifts after actual occupancy, which would substantially impair [their] ability or the ability of [their] estate to satisfy [their] financial obligations to [GSV].” Further, the contract specifies that the financial information disclosed with their application was “a material part of this [contract], . . . [that was] incorporated as a part of this [contract].” Although, as defendants correctly contend, the contract does not affirmatively state that the Yezzis must expend the private resources identified with their application, it does expressly preclude the transfer of such resources without fair consideration.

Given the long-term nature of the contract, which expressly embraced the prospect of nursing facility care, we agree with Supreme Court that the admission agreement is supplemental to, and does not supercede, the contract. We recognize that, under the admission agreement, the Yezzis were required to “pay for, or arrange to have paid for by Medicaid, . . . all services provided by [GSV]” (emphasis added). We are not, however, persuaded by defendants’ interpretation that this disjunctive provision required plaintiff to accept Medicaid as an alternative payment source. Construed together, the contract and admission agreement are actually compatible in that the CCRC financial model anticipates that, upon depletion of a resident’s personal resources, Medicaid will be the ultimate source of payment — and plaintiff is contractually obligated to accept Medicaid while continuing to provide the same services. Consistently, addendum X to the admission agreement specifies that, “[i]t is the responsibility of residents, and those who assist them, to use the residents’ assets and income to pay the costs associated with their residency and health care.” Good Shepherd Vil. at Endwell, Inc. v Yezzi, 2015 NY Slip Op 08031, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

,

Audit Procedures, Disclosure of Which Could Impede Investigations, Are Exempt from Disclosure

The Third Department noted that documents reflecting audit procedures used by the Department of Education are exempt from a FOIL request if they would facilitate attempts to circumvent the law, even though the documents were not directly related to law enforcement proceedings:

“FOIL is based on a presumption of access to the records, and an agency . . . carries the burden of demonstrating that the exemption applies to the FOIL request” … . The Department here relied upon Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (e) in providing redacted records and, specifically, a provision that exempts records from disclosure that “are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [e] [i]). Respondents asserted that the redactions were necessary because disclosure of the unredacted documents would reveal auditing techniques that would enable the providers of preschool special education programs to conceal their financial misdeeds more effectively.

The Department was directed to prepare the audit guidelines in the wake of audits conducted by the Comptroller that “found a pattern of mismanagement, waste and even fraud by numerous private providers of preschool special education” … . Those audits resulted in criminal investigations and the referral of “numerous” certified public accountants to the Department for disciplinary proceedings, and there is no reason to doubt that audits conducted under the guidance of the Department are also aimed at uncovering financial malfeasance. As such, while the guidelines and related documents did not arise from a specific law enforcement investigation, they were nevertheless compiled with law enforcement purposes in mind, and are exempt from disclosure if their release would enable individuals to “frustrate pending or prospective investigations or to use that information to impede a prosecution” … . Matter of Madeiros v New York State Educ. Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 08028, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

, ,

Out-of-Possession Landlord and Lessee Are Not “United In Interest” Such that the Lessee Could Be Added to the Complaint After the Statute of Limitations Had Run (Relation-Back Doctrine)

The Third Department determined Supreme Court, in a snow-ice slip and fall case, properly denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, after the statute of limitations had run, to add the lessee of the property (Albany Medical Center Hospital [AMCH]) as a defendant. The defendant out-of-possession landlord demonstrated, under the terms of the lease, AMCH had the responsibility for maintaining the property in a safe condition. Because the out-of-possession landlord and AMCH were not “united in interest,” the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

… [T]he relation back doctrine permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a defendant even though the statute of limitations had expired at the time of amendment so long as three requirements are met: “(1) both claims must arise out of the same occurrence, (2) [the] defendant and [the new party] were united in interest, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) [the new party] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [the] plaintiff as to the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against it as well ” … . While there is no dispute that the first prong of this test is satisfied under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that defendant and AMCH do not share unity of interest inasmuch as they cannot be said to “stand or fall together” … . “Indeed, unless the original defendant and new party are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] there is no unity of interest between them” … . McLaughlin v 22 New Scotland Ave., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07883, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

,

Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context Explained

The Third Department determined the board’s finding that claimant’s absenteeism did not amount to disqualifying misconduct (because it was related to his diabetes) was supported by substantial evidence. The court also explained its review powers in this context:

While continued absenteeism, despite previous warnings, may rise to the level of misconduct disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits …, “termination of employment attributable to symptoms of a diagnosed medical condition will not constitute disqualifying misconduct”… .  Whether an absence is justified so as to remove it from disqualifying misconduct is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its resolution of this issue will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … .

Here, claimant testified that he suffers from type 1 diabetes and that he experienced a diabetic episode, consisting of shakiness, nausea and headaches, that caused his absence on August 8, 2013. He submitted medical documentation confirming his diabetic condition and indicating that it is being treated but has been “difficult to control.” Although the employer was aware that he was a diabetic, claimant admittedly failed to inform his superiors that he was experiencing health problems related to his diabetes or that this was the cause of his August 8, 2013 absence. The Board, as the final arbiter of factual issues and credibility, was free to credit claimant’s testimony concerning the reason for his absence and was not bound by the contrary conclusion reached by the ALJ … . Pursuant to our limited review, “this Court may not weigh conflicting evidence or substitute its own judgment, and if, as here, the findings turn on the credibility of witnesses, we may not substitute our perceptions for those of the agency” … . Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant’s loss of employment was not due to disqualifying misconduct … . Matter of Suchocki (St. Joseph’s R.C. Church–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07899, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

Instructor at Community College Entitled to Unemployment Benefits, No Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment

The Third Department determined claimant, an adjunct instructor at a community college, was properly awarded unemployment insurance benefits because he did not receive reasonable assurance of continued employment during the following term:

Labor Law § 590 (10) precludes a professional employed by an educational institution from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic terms if the educational institution has provided the professional with a reasonable assurance of continued employment … . A “reasonable assurance,” in turn, is a representation by the educational institution “that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” … . This is a factual question for the Board to resolve and its determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … .

Here, although the department chair mentioned that claimant could teach potentially four courses during the spring 2014 semester, which exceeded the number that he taught during the fall 2013 semester, this was never confirmed during any subsequent conversations nor in the letter sent to claimant. Significantly, the letter did not specify the details of the spring 2014 semester teaching assignment and conditioned claimant’s further employment upon “enrollment and/or budget constraints.” In cases where educational institutions have failed to set forth the terms or conditions of continued employment or have made such employment contingent upon certain conditions, courts have found that a reasonable assurance was lacking … . Matter of Upham (Dutchess Community Coll.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07898, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

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