You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

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