You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Plaintiff Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate Fire Was Not Intentionally Set by Merely Challenging the Insurer’s Arson Investigation—Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Proof Burdens at Summary Judgment Stage Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in its breach of contract action against the insurer. Plaintiff’s restaurant was destroyed by fire. The insurer disclaimed coverage on the ground that the fire had been intentionally set. Plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking the dismissal of the insurer’s affirmative defense (arson) and judgment in its favor on liability. The court explained the relevant proof burdens re: the affirmative defense of arson at the summary judgment stage:

As the movant, plaintiff was required to initially demonstrate “the absence of genuine issues of material fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings, including any affirmative defenses” … . Upon the affirmative defense of arson, if plaintiff, as the insured, met its initial burden, the burden would then shift to defendant, as the insurer. Although defendant’s ultimate burden of proving the affirmative defense at trial would be by the standard of clear and convincing evidence …, this strict standard is not applied at this juncture. Assuming that plaintiff met its initial burden to demonstrate that the fire was not intentionally set and that plaintiff had no motive to commit arson, to defeat the summary judgment motion defendant was merely required to demonstrate “that plaintiff’s premises may have been damaged by arson and that plaintiff may have had a motive to see the property destroyed by fire” … . Importantly, “[e]vidence of motive and incendiary origin without more is sufficient to defeat an insured’s motion for summary judgment in an action on its fire insurance policy” … .

Plaintiff failed to offer evidence to establish that the fire had not been intentionally set and, instead, merely challenged the validity of defendant’s investigation, arguing that the evidence failed to affirmatively establish that the fire had been deliberately set. Morley Maples, Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06395, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract complaint, finding that the exceptions to the enforceability of a “no damages for delay” clause did not apply, and the “mandatory notice” clause precluded suit for “extra work.” Plaintiff was engaged by defendant to install heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment:

As a general rule, “contract clauses exculpating the contractee from liability to the contractor for damages resulting from delays in performance of the contract work” are valid and enforceable … . However, even where the contract contains such a clause, there are several recognized exceptions. As relevant here, a contractor may still recover for “delays caused by the contractee’s bad faith or its willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct” … . A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay damages “bears the initial burden of demonstrating prima facie that none of the exceptions to the ‘damages for delay’ clause are present” … .  * * *

… [P]laintiff attempts to claim compensation for tasks that allegedly constituted “extra work” beyond the scope of the parties’ contract. However, a provision in the contract required plaintiff to notify defendant that it considered a task to constitute extra work within 15 working days after being ordered to undertake the task or beginning to perform it. Here, plaintiff concedes that it did not notify defendant of this claim until five months after it began performance of the disputed task. Thus, “[d]efendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that [plaintiff] did not comply with the condition precedent” by providing timely notice … . Tougher Indus., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06388, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

, ,

agreement to maintain a driveway on a right-of-way ran with the land.

The Third Department held small claims court had properly determined an agreement to maintain a driveway on a right-of-way passing through the grantor’s front parcel to the grantee’s rear parcel ran with the land. The Third Department noted its review of small claims court rulings is confined to whether “substantial justice” was done according to the rules and principals of substantive law. Small claims court correctly held that the original parties to the property transfer intended the maintenance agreement to run with the land and that the agreement “touches and concerns” the land.  Therefore the defendant, the subsequent purchaser of the rear parcel, was bound by the maintenance agreement:

“Appellate review of small claims is limited to determining whether ‘substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law'” … . Accordingly, this Court will overturn such a decision only if it is clearly erroneous … . As relevant here, to establish that the 1982 agreement ran with the land and was binding on defendants, plaintiff was required to establish that “(1) the grantor and grantee intended the [agreement] to run with the land, (2) there is privity of estate between the parties to the current dispute, and (3) the [agreement] touches and concerns the land” … . * * *

…[A]n agreement touches and concerns the land “if it affects the legal relations — the advantages and the burdens — of the parties to the [agreement], as owners of particular parcels of land and not merely as members of the community in general”… . Pugliatti v Riccio, 2015 NY Slip Op 06398, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

correspondence which was intended to lead to a settlement agreement (re: real property taxes) did not create a binding agreement

The Third Department determined correspondence which was intended to lead to a settlement agreement (re: real property taxes) did not create a binding agreement. Subsequent to the correspondence, proposed stipulations had been circulated but were not executed. The Court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

… [A]n out-of-court settlement agreement “is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by [that party] or [that party’s] attorney” (CPLR 2104). Writings between parties to an action or proceeding that discuss the possibility of settlement will be considered to constitute a binding agreement if “the settlement agreement was adequately described in [such] writings, namely, the agreement was clear, the product of mutual accord and contained all material terms” … . Settlement-related writings may be deemed to have contained sufficiently detailed terms to give rise to a binding agreement when, for example, these writings explicitly incorporate the terms of other documents prepared in anticipation of settlement … . In contrast, settlement-related writings will not be found to have created a binding agreement if they expressly anticipate a subsequent writing that is to officially memorialize the existence of a settlement agreement and set forth all of its material terms … . Matter of George W. & Dacie Clements Agric. Research Inst., Inc. v Green, 2015 NY Slip Op 06399, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Only Documents Relevant to the Order/Judgment Appealed from Should Be in the Record on Appeal—Motion to Settle the Record Denied

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to settle the record (on appeal) by adding documents (which were deemed not relevant to the appeal). The court described the required contents of the record:

Consistent with the provisions of CPLR 5526, “the record on appeal from a final judgment shall consist of a notice of appeal, the judgment roll, the transcript or a statement in lieu of a transcript if there was a trial or hearing, any exhibits in the court of original instance, any other reviewable order and any opinion in the case” … . The judgment roll, in turn, shall contain, among other things, “the summons, pleadings, admissions, each judgment and each order involving the merits or necessarily affecting the final judgment” (CPLR 5017 [b]…). As a result, “[d]ocuments or information that were not before [the trial court] cannot be considered by this Court on appeal” .. . Here, Supreme Court expressly found that the five documents at issue were neither considered in conjunction with nor relevant to the issues that gave rise to its … order and judgment… . Xiaoling Shirley He v Xiaokang Xu, 2015 NY Slip Op 06385, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

Failure to Directly Address a Juror’s Stated Bias Required Reversal—“Bright Line” Rule Explained

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that, once the prospective juror (No. 383) expressed a bias based upon the age difference between the adult defendant and child complainant, the failure to gain the assurance from the juror that her prior state of mind will not influence her verdict and she will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence constituted reversible error. The fact that the juror assured the judge she would not vote to convict if she had a reasonable doubt and that she would follow the law as instructed was not enough to address the expressed age-related bias.  A juror who has expressed a bias must unambiguously assure the court she will put her bias aside:

Once a prospective juror has identified his or her own biased perspective, he or she “must expressly state that his [or her] prior state of mind concerning either the case or either of the parties will not influence his [or her] verdict, and he [or she] must also state that he [or she] will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . “[N]othing less than a personal, unequivocal assurance of impartiality can cure a juror’s prior indication that [he or] she is predisposed against a particular defendant or particular type of case” …, and, accordingly, the “bright-line standard . . . followed throughout the state” is “that a prospective juror who expresses partiality towards [one party] and cannot unequivocally promise to set aside this bias should be removed for cause” … . * * *

Considering the entirety of the questions posed to juror No. 383 and her responses, juror No. 383 unambiguously acknowledged a form of bias — based on the respective ages of the victim and defendant — that she identified as preventing her from being a fair and impartial juror. After juror No. 383 identified her own bias, she was never asked a question that referenced whether she could set aside any biases she held, generally, or whether she could set aside her specific bias regarding the respective ages of defendant and the victim. Further, in her responses to questions posed to her, juror No. 383 never specifically made reference to the age issue after she identified it as preventing her from being fair and impartial, and she never agreed, more generally, that she could set aside any bias that she held and decide the case in a fair and impartial manner based on the evidence presented. Therefore, juror No. 383 did not “unambiguously state that, despite preexisting opinions that might indicate bias, [she would] decide the case impartially and based on the evidence,” because she never made any statement regarding her preexisting opinion, let alone an unambiguous statement that she could set such opinion aside (People v Arnold, 96 NY2d at 363)[FN3]. Accordingly, County Court committed reversible error in denying defendant’s for-cause challenge to a juror who never contradicted or retracted her statement that her bias related to the respective ages of defendant and the victim prevented her from being a fair and impartial juror … . People v Warrington, 2015 NY Slip Op 06380, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

, ,

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

 

,

Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met

The Third Department determined that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly granted. A cotenant who had resided at the property, maintained the property, and paid the taxes for over two decades, brought an action seeking exclusive ownership based upon ouster of defendant cotenant and/or adverse possession. Neither the complaint nor plaintiff’s submissions established the statutory criteria for ouster or adverse possession (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law [RPAPL] 541) . There was no unequivocal expression by the possessory cotenant that the property was being adversely possessed, and the inclusion of the defendant cotenant’s name on a property insurance policy belied adverse possession. The court noted that exclusive possession and payment of maintenance expenses by a cotenant, standing alone, do not establish adverse possession:

The law that would have provided … plaintiff a valid legal claim with regard to the underlying property dispute is RPAPL 541, which provides that, “[w]here the relation of tenants in common has existed, the occupancy of one tenant . . . is deemed to have been the possession of the other, notwithstanding that the tenant so occupying the premises . . . has claimed to hold adversely to the other. But this presumption shall cease after the expiration of ten years of continuous exclusive occupancy by such tenant, . . . or immediately upon an ouster by one tenant of the other and such occupying tenant may then commence to hold adversely to his [or her] cotenant.” It is well settled that, “absent ouster, the period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may be said to acquire full title by adverse possession” … .

We reject plaintiff’s contention that she and Lindine ever ousted defendant or defendant’s parents from the property. An ouster will not be deemed to have occurred unless the possessory cotenant, either through words or actions, unequivocally expresses to the nonpossessory cotenant that the property is being adversely possessed … . * * *

Plaintiff alternatively contends that, even if no ouster has been established, she and Lindine adversely possessed the property, given their exclusive use of it for more than two decades (see RPAPL 541). In support of this argument, plaintiff emphasizes that she and Lindine paid all taxes and expenses for the property, and made all necessary repairs to its structural improvements. Defendant never visited the property during the years that plaintiff and Lindine lived there permanently and defendant’s parents, it is claimed, only did so twice. Even accepting these allegations as true, “exclusive possession and the payment of maintenance expenses by a [possessory] cotenant are[, standing alone,] insufficient to establish a claim of right for purposes of adverse possession as against a cotenant” … . Lindine v Iasenza, 2015 NY Slip Op 06275, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

, ,

Improper Evidence of Uncharged Offenses, a Police Officer’s Vouching for the Reliability and Credibility of the People’s Central Witness, and the Court’s Failure to Give Limiting Instructions to the Jurors after Sustaining Objections to Improper Testimony Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction based upon several errors including the improper presentation of evidence of uncharged crimes attributed to the defendant and a police officer’s vouching for the reliability and credibility of the confidential informant (CI), upon whose testimony the People’s case depended. The jury heard evidence of defendant’s participation in a drug offense identical to that for which he was on trial. Even though objection to the testimony was sustained and the testimony struck, no limiting instructions were given to the jury. Evidence of defendant’s sitting at a table on which were large amounts of heroin and crack cocaine was also improperly presented. Objection to that testimony was overruled. With respect to the police officer’s vouching for the credibility and reliability of the CI, the defense objection to that testimony was sustained, but no curative instructions were given to the jury:

At trial … the CI testified that defendant was not only present during [a] controlled purchase of crack cocaine, but that he had also participated in the transaction by providing the actual drugs. County Court denied defendant’s prompt motion for a mistrial, but otherwise sustained his objection and struck this portion of the CI’s testimony, without further limiting instructions to the jury. In our view, this revelation was highly prejudicial, as it related to a recent uncharged crime that was nearly identical to the sale for which defendant was on trial … . Shortly thereafter, the CI recounted that, upon entering the apartment on October 9, 2012, he had observed defendant sitting at a table “with large amounts of heroin and crack cocaine in front of him.” Although no reference to “heroin” was included in the People’s Molineux proffer, or otherwise previously disclosed, the court overruled defendant’s objection, permitting further testimony from the CI about the presence of heroin. Because defendant was not charged with possession or sale of heroin, it cannot be said that this evidence was directly related to or in any way necessary to explain his alleged possession and sale of crack cocaine such that it was inextricably interwoven into the CI’s narrative … . Significantly, the court did not attempt to cure the prejudice arising from the CI’s improper testimony by issuing an instruction either at the time of defendant’s objection or during the jury charge … . * * *

Further prejudice resulted from the People’s redirect examination of [officer] Gillis, who stated that the CI was “very reliable and very trustworthy.” After County Court overruled defendant’s objection, and characterized the testimony as “opinion,” Gillis elaborated that the CI had “never given [him a] reason to not believe anything that [the CI] is telling [him].” Allowing Gillis to vouch for the CI’s credibility was clearly improper … . The effect was compounded by the People’s summation, wherein the prosecutor surmised that law enforcement had used the CI for several years because of his reliability … . While we recognize that County Court sustained defendant’s objection, no curative instruction was issued, and we remain concerned that the prosecutor’s remark amplified the effect of Gillis’ improper vouching … . People v Nicholas, 2015 NY Slip Op 06269, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

, ,

Road Washout Was Due to a Highway Design Issue for Which Adequate Remedial Planning Had Been Made—The Washout Was Not, Therefore, Caused by a Highway Maintenance Deficiency to Which the Negligence Standard Applies—State Entitled to Qualified Immunity Re: a Vehicle Accident Caused by a Sinkhole

The Third Department determined the maintenance and construction of a culvert, around which the road repeatedly washed out, was a highway design issue, for which the state was protected by qualified immunity, not a highway maintenance issue, for which a negligence standard applies. Claimant was injured when his vehicle went into a sinkhole near the culvert.

Municipalities unquestionably have a duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition … . With respect to highway safety and design, however, defendant is “accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Here, the gravamen of the claim is that the 9-foot-high, 15-foot-wide oval culvert that carried the Spuytenduiveil Creek underneath Route 8 was too small and should have been replaced. Plaintiff maintains that this condition presented a maintenance and repair issue that defendant was required to address in its proprietary capacity for which basic negligence and not sovereign immunity principles apply … . * * *

In order to successfully invoke the qualified immunity defense, defendant had the burden of demonstrating that its decision with regard to the replacement of the culvert “‘was the product of a deliberative decision-making process'” … . Even with design planning issues, liability may exist where the municipality does not adequately analyze the condition or if there is no reasonable basis for its plan … . If a remedial plan is developed, “liability may result from a failure to effectuate the plan within a reasonable period of time,” but “a reasonable delay justified by design considerations [or] a legitimate claim of funding priorities would not be actionable” … .

Based upon our review of the probative evidence, we agree with the Court of Claims that the replacement of the culvert presented a design and not a maintenance issue and that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Evans v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06288, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

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