You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Failure to Meet One-Year Residency Requirement Invalidated Designating Petition

The Third Department affirmed the invalidation of petitioner’s designating petition because petitioner had not lived in the relevant district for one year, as required by the Albany County Charter. The court held the residency requirement did not violate due process:

… [B]y conceding that the address listed on his designating petition is outside the 9th Legislative District and that he did not, in fact, live in that district, petitioner failed to demonstrate that he satisfied the residency requirements and, consequently, did not meet his burden of demonstrating the validity of his designating petition … .

… [W]e find that the one-year durational residency requirement imposes a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction on prospective candidates and voters that is supported by a rational basis … . Matter of Scavo v Albany County Bd. of Elections, 2015 NY Slip Op 06640, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

Address Errors Rendered Designating Petition Invalid—Petitioner Not Entitled to “Opportunity to Ballot”

The Third Department determined that errors in indicating the correct address of signatories invalidated the designating petition, Because such errors are not deemed merely “technical” errors under the Election Law, the petitioner’s request for an “opportunity to ballot” was properly denied:

Pursuant to Election Law § 6-130, “[t]he sheets of a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Strict compliance with Election Law § 6-130 is mandated, as its requirements constitute “a matter of substance and not of form”… . * * *

… [T]he discretional remedy of an opportunity to ballot should be granted “only where the defects which require invalidation of a designating petition are technical in nature and do not call into serious question the existence of adequate support among eligible voters” … . Here, we find that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the opportunity to ballot remedy is not appropriate in light of the fact that the defects at issue have been held to be substantive and not technical in nature … . Matter of Canary v New York State Bd. of Elections, 2015 NY Slip Op 06638, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

,

Fact that Notary Public Did Not Administer an Oath to the Signatories on the Designating Petition Did Not Invalidate the Petition

The Third Department determined the signatures on the candidate-designating petition were valid, despite the respondent’s, Sira’s, admission that no oath was administered to the signatories which Sira signed as a notary public. The court noted that, under the Election Law, Sira could have merely witnessed the signatures, without signing as a notary public. Because there was no evidence the signatures were fraudulent in any way, the petition was deemed valid:

“A designating petition will be invalidated if the challenger shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the entire petition is permeated with fraud or that the candidate participated in, or can be charged with knowledge of, fraudulent activity” … . Here, although Sira herself attested to 307 signatures on her designating petition as a notary public, which included an affirmation that the signatories had sworn that their statements were true, she admitted at the hearing that she had not administered an oath to the signatories or obtained a statement as to the truth of the matter to which they subscribed as required by Election Law § 6-132 (3) … . Sira concedes that those 307 signatures are therefore invalid. However, we are unconvinced that Sira’s actions amounted to fraud warranting invalidation of the entire designating petition. Notably, as a registered member of the Republican Party living in Fulton County, Sira was not required to attest to the signatures on her petition as a notary public; rather, Sira could have attested as a witness to the signatures, requiring only an affirmation that the signatories identified themselves as the individuals who signed the petition and that they signed the petition in the presence of the witness (see Election Law § 6-132 [2]). Significantly, there is no evidence that Sira did not witness the signatures she attested to or that the signatures were not authentic. Thus, in our view, it has not been established by clear and convincing evidence that, under these circumstances, invalidation of Sira’s entire designating petition is warranted on this basis… . Matter of Vincent v Sira, 2015 NY Slip Op 06636, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

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