You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Where the State Is a Potential Joint Tortfeasor Which Cannot Be Joined In the Supreme Court Action with the Other Defendant (Because the State Must Be Sued in the Court of Claims), the Jury in the Supreme Court Trial Should Be Allowed, If Appropriate, to Apportion Damages Between the Defendant and the State

Plaintiff was injured when a tree limb fell and struck her car while she was driving on a state highway. Plaintiff sued both the defendant (the property owner) and the state. However, the state could be sued only in the Court of Claims, so two separate actions were brought against the two potential tortfeasors. The Third Department, in a case of first impression, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a partial dissent, determined that evidence of both the defendant’s and the state’s liability could be presented in the Supreme Court trial and the jury should, if appropriate, be allowed to apportion damages between the defendant and the state:

“Under CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor whose culpability is 50% or less is not jointly liable for all of [a] plaintiff’s noneconomic damages, but severally liable for its proportionate share” … . The provision was promulgated as a modification of the common-law theory of joint and several liability, the purpose of which was to “remedy the inequities created by joint and several liability on low-fault, ‘deep pocket’ defendants” … . However, where potential tortfeasors are not joined in an action, the culpability of a nonparty tortfeasor may be imposed upon the named defendant if the plaintiff can show that he or she is unable to obtain jurisdiction over the nonparty tortfeasor (see CPLR 1601 [1]). Here, plaintiffs do not face a jurisdictional limitation in impleading the State as a codefendant, but instead cannot do so due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity … . Plaintiffs’ only recourse against the State is to pursue an action in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). Likewise, if defendant is found liable in Supreme Court, it could seek indemnification from the State relative to its share of actual culpability as an additional claimant in the subsequent Court of Claims action … .

CPLR 1601 (1) is silent in regard to whether the State’s proportionate share of liability should be considered in calculating a defendant’s culpability in an action like the one at bar, and we have never decided the issue. * * *

Although we recognize the possibility of inconsistent verdicts as to the apportionment of fault in Supreme Court and in the Court of Claims, we note that this risk arises regardless of whether or not the jury is entitled to apportion liability between defendant and the State … . Given the statutory purpose of CPLR 1601 (1) to “limit[] a joint tortfeasor’s liability for noneconomic losses to its proportionate share, provided that it is 50% or less at fault” …, we find that juries in this scenario should be given the option to, if appropriate, apportion fault between defendant and the State. Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06556, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

, , ,

Sexual Harassment Findings Affirmed

The Third Department affirmed the State Division of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) determination that respondent corrections officer had been subjected to sexual harassment (creating a hostile work environment) and was entitled to economic and noneconomic damages. The court noted that its review powers were “narrow” and were confined to whether the Commissioner of Human Rights’ rulings were rational in light of the evidence. The court further noted that the Commissioner should not have offset the award based upon past and future workers’ compensation benefits, and the commissioner should have considered respondent’s loss of pension benefits. In explaining its review criteria, the court wrote:

When reviewing a determination made by the Commissioner in a matter such as this one, our purview is “extremely narrow” and must focus not on whether we would have reached the same result as did the Commissioner, but instead on whether the Commissioner’s determination was rational in light of the evidence presented … . Such deference is due given SDHR’s expertise in evaluating discrimination claims … . A violation of Executive Law § 296 based on a hostile work environment must be supported by proof that the “workplace [was so] permeated [by a] discriminatory” atmosphere that it “alter[ed] the conditions of the [complainant’s] employment” … . “Where, as here, there is a finding of a hostile work environment as a result of sexual harassment, the evidence in the record must establish the pertinent elements, including proof that the discriminatory conduct occurred due to the complainant’s gender”… . Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Dept. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2015 NY Slip Op 06551, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

, ,

Proof of Inability to Control Sexual Behavior (Over and Above Proof of Antisocial Personality Disorder [ASPD]), Deemed Sufficient to Justify Confinement as a Dangerous Sex Offender

After the Court of Appeals determined that Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) was not a sufficient ground for a finding of a “mental abnormality” requiring confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, Supreme Court vacated its prior adjudication that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the confinement. The majority concluded there was sufficient evidence of mental disorders (over and above ASPD) which rendered respondent unable to control his sexual behavior. The dissenters found the evidence insufficient. Both the majority and the dissent went through the evidence in detail. The majority explained the general analytical criteria:

In order “[t]o demonstrate that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, petitioner was required to prove ‘by clear and convincing evidence that . . . respondent has a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control [his] behavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility'” … . Respondent takes issue with the finding that he suffered from a mental abnormality, i.e., “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [his] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]…).

Substantive due process requires that evidence of a mental abnormality reflect a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” that, “when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, . . . [is] sufficient to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him [or her] to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case” … . As such, “the New York statutory structure does not run afoul of substantive due process because it requires [petitioner] to prove that the individual is dangerous, and the dangerousness must be coupled with a mental abnormality, which — by definition — incorporates the additional requirement that the offender have serious difficulty with behavioral control” … . The Court of Appeals has determined that a diagnosis of ASPD, without more, does not meet that requirement, as it “establishes only a general tendency toward criminality, and has no necessary relationship to a difficulty in controlling one’s sexual behavior” … . Matter of State of New York v Richard TT., 2015 NY Slip Op 06557, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

,

Department of Motor Vehicles Did Not Exceed Its Powers In Promulgating Regulations Re: Lifetime Revocation of Driver’s Licenses, Five-Year Stay of Relicensure, and Subsequent Five-Year Restricted License/Ignition Interlock Period for Alcohol-Related Convictions

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, over a two-justice dissent, determined that petitioner’s challenges to Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV’S) regulations re: (1) the lifetime revocation of a driver’s license for alcohol-related convictions, (2) the five-year stay of relicensure for persons with three alcohol-related convictions, and (3) the subsequent five-year period with the imposition of a restricted license and installation of ignition interlock device, were properly dismissed as nonjusticiable (petitioner not yet affected by any of them). The court went on to determine the DMV, by promulgating these regulations, did not encroach upon the powers of the legislature. The dissenters argued that some of the challenges were justiciable and the DMV in fact exceeded its powers by mandating a five-year stay of relicensure for anyone with three alcohol-related convictions within a 25-year lookback, as well as the subsequent five-year period allowing only a restricted license with the installation of an ignition interlock device. The majority explained the general principles for analyzing whether an agency has exceeded its powers:

To determine whether an administrative agency has usurped the power of the Legislature, courts must consider whether the agency: (1) “operat[ed] outside of its proper sphere of authority” by balancing competing social concerns in reliance “solely on [its] own ideas of sound public policy”; (2) engaged in typical, “interstitial” rulemaking or “wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without the benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) “acted in an area in which the Legislature has repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions”; and (4) applied its “special expertise or technical competence” to develop the challenged regulations (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 12-14 …).  Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 06467, 3rd Dept 8-6-15

 

,

Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule Established Possession of Note at the Time Foreclosure Was Commenced

The Third Department determined plaintiff bank demonstrated it had standing to foreclose by sufficient proof it had possession of the underlying note at the time the foreclosure proceeding was commenced. Proof of possession of the note was by an affidavit invoking the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court noted that evidence a document received from another entity was filed does not qualify the documents as business records. Here, however, the affidavit included sufficient additional information to demonstrate the applicability of the exception:

While “the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records” …, such records are nonetheless admissible “if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records or routinely relied upon the recipient in its business” … . To be admissible, these documents should carry the indicia of reliability ordinarily associated with business records … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica, 2015  Slip Op 06453, 3rd Dept 8-6-15

 

,

Failure to Adequately Describe Location of Slip and Fall Rendered Notice of Intention Jurisdictionally Defective

The Third Department determined claimant’s notice of intention was jurisdictionally defective because it did not adequately describe the location of plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on ice and snow:

Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires that a notice of intention to file a claim set forth, among other things, “the time when and place where such claim arose” … . While “absolute exactness” is not necessary … a claimant must “provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of [its] liability” … . “Failure to abide by these pleading requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the claim, even though this may be a harsh result” … .

Claimant’s notice of intention states that he slipped and fell on unseen ice on a sidewalk “on the campus of the State University of New York at Oneonta.” While we recognize that notices of intention are reviewed less strictly than claims …, we nevertheless find that this generalized description of the location at which claimant fell was insufficient to permit defendant to investigate its liability … . Because claimant’s notice of intention was deficient, claimant did not receive the benefit of the two-year extension and was obligated to file his claim within 90 days of its accrual … . As claimant failed to do so, his claim was properly dismissed. Sommer v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06472, 3rd Dept 8-6-15

 

, ,

Petitioner-Teacher Never Consented to an “Out of Area” Assignment—Therefore She Was Entitled to Seniority in Her Teaching Area, Despite Her Assignment to Another Area

The Third Department determined Supreme Court correctly annulled the commissioner’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment on the ground that her position was properly eliminated because she had the least seniority. Although petitioner was in the English tenure area, she was assigned to teach computer classes, which she had taught for 11 years. The commissioner determined she had acquired no seniority because she had not taught in her tenure area.  However, the relevant regulations require that a teacher consent to an “out of area” assignment. Because petitioner never consented to an “out of area” assignment, she was entitled to seniority in her English tenure area, despite the fact she was assigned to teach computer classes.  The Third Department noted that the Commissioner’s ruling constituted an artificial or forced construction of the applicable regulations:

Petitioner acknowledges that, although the Board awarded her tenure in the English 7-12 tenure area, she never spent 40% or more of her time teaching English classes. She contends, however, that her seniority is preserved by another provision of the Rules, which states that “[n]o professional educator, whether on tenure or in probationary status, may be assigned to devote a substantial portion of his [or her] time in a tenure area other than that in which he [or she] has acquired tenure or is in probationary status, without his [or her] prior written consent” (8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]).

Our review of the evidence reveals that petitioner was a professional educator (see 8 NYCRR 30-1.1 [e]) who was assigned exclusively to teach computer classes, which the Board admits was an assignment outside of her probationary and acquired English 7-12 tenure area. The record is devoid of evidence that petitioner was aware that she was given an out-of-area assignment or that she consented to it in writing. * * * Nowhere in the language of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) is there a requirement that professional educators must first spend some of their time teaching within their probationary or acquired tenure areas before earning the right to consent to an out-of-area assignment. Inasmuch as the Commissioner’s interpretation reads this nonexistent requirement into the provision, we view it as “an artificial or forced construction” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94).

The Commissioner’s interpretation also runs contrary to the underlying purposes of the Rules governing teacher tenure and seniority credit. As the Court of Appeals has noted, 8 NYCRR former 30.9 (b) (now 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]) “protects teachers from being deprived of credit in a previously appointed tenure area if they unwittingly accept, and serve in, out-of-area assignments” … . The “twofold protective purpose” of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) — that is, to protect teachers from unknowing, involuntary out-of-area assignments and allow for the accrual of seniority credit in their original tenure area if they should accept such an assignment — is not served if the provision is construed in such a way as “to block a teacher from receiving seniority credit which, absent school district error, would have been received by reason of actual service in an out-of-tenure area”… . Because the Commissioner’s interpretation of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) has precisely this effect on petitioner, we find that Supreme Court properly annulled the Commissioner’s confirmation of petitioner’s termination. Matter of Cronk v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 06396, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Parent Corporation Not Entitled to Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise (QEZE) Property Tax Credits Because a Related But Separate Entity Did Not Make Payments Required by Its “Payment In Lieu of Taxes” (PILOT) Agreement

With regard to a building in the City of Rochester, the Third Department determined a parent corporation was not entitled to Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise (QEZE) tax credits because a related but separate limited partnership, Rochwil, did not make payments required by its “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) agreement.

The primary issue presented in this proceeding is whether petitioner could claim a refund for unused QEZE real property tax credits that were reported by its subsidiary based on its partnership interest in Rochwil for PILOT payments that were not made. As the taxpayer seeking a tax credit, petitioner “bears the burden of establishing that such credit is unambiguously set forth in the statute” … . To meet this burden, petitioner must show that its “interpretation of the statute is not only plausible, but also that it is the only reasonable construction” … .

We cannot conclude that petitioner met its burden here. As a QEZE, Rochwil was entitled to a credit for eligible real property taxes (see Tax Law former § 15 [a]), and it is not disputed that petitioner was entitled to seek such credit against its corporate franchise taxes during the years at issue (see Tax Law former § 210 [27]). As relevant to this dispute, the term “eligible real property taxes” includes both “taxes imposed on real property which is owned by the QEZE . . . provided such taxes become a lien on the real property” and “[PILOT payments] made by the QEZE to . . . a public benefit corporation” (Tax Law former § 15 [e]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the plain and unambiguous language of the statute provides that real property taxes imposed are distinct from PILOT payments made, and where, as here, a QEZE does not own the property but is instead subject to a PILOT agreement with the property owner, the PILOT payments must be made in order to qualify for the credit provided by Tax Law former § 15 … . Matter of Wilmorite, Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06386, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Judge’s Failure to Recuse Himself Was an Abuse of Discretion/Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with a Condition Precedent Mandated Summary Judgment to Defendants

The Third Department determined the judge hearing a case concerning the construction of a casino and resort should have recused himself. The judge’s wife was in the county legislature and had voiced support of defendants’ position. In his decision granting summary judgment to the defendants, the judge stated to do otherwise would “violate public policy,” an issue which was not properly part of the case before him. However, the Third Department went on to consider the merits of the case. Plaintiffs’ failure to meet a condition precedent (concerning the financing of the project) by the specified date was an unambiguous breach of the contract, mandating summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

Considering the irrelevancy of [the judge’s] comments to the issues before the court and the parallels between them and the public comments of [his wife] in support of [defendants’] casino proposal, [the judge’s] inclusion of such inherently legislative and policy considerations as a basis for his order displays a striking lack of “sensitivity to the aroma of favoritism [that] such a favorable disposition could engender” … . Under the circumstances, it seems to us that [the judge] should have recognized that this was a situation in which his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]), and, therefore, we must conclude that his failure to recuse himself constituted a clear abuse of discretion … . Concord Assoc., L.P. v EPT Concord, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06393, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Purchase Contract Properly Converted to a “Time Is of the Essence” Contract

In affirming the judgment awarded plaintiff in this breach of contract action, the Third Department noted that a “non time of the essence” real estate purchase contract can be converted to a “time of the essence” contract by giving the buyer clear, unequivocal notice and a reasonable time to perform, as was done by the seller here. 12 Baker Hill Rd., Inc. v Miranti, 2015 NY Slip Op 06400, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

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