You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

In the Absence of Prejudice to Defendants, It Was Not Error to Allow Evidence of a Theory of Liability Not Explicitly Referenced in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars

The Third Department determined evidence of a theory of liability that was not explicitly included in the pleadings and bill of particulars was not error. The theory was implicit in the pleadings and the defendants could not have been surprised by the related evidence. The court noted it would have been better had the plaintiffs moved to conform the pleadings to the evidence:

Generally, a party is limited to presenting evidence at trial that supports a cause of action or theory of recovery that was either pleaded in the complaint or asserted in the bill of particulars … . However, evidence concerning a specific theory or injury not mentioned in the bill of particulars may nonetheless avoid exclusion where such proof necessarily flows from the information conveyed in the pleadings and where the defendants should have been aware of the basis thereof… .

The contested theory of liability in this case is based on the allegedly erroneous interpretation of plaintiff’s February CT scan by Beatty (hereinafter referred to as the Beatty theory). It is worth noting that, because the complaint and bills of particulars do not contain an express articulation of the Beatty theory, the better practice certainly would have been for plaintiff to seek leave to amend his pleadings in advance of trial or at least have moved to conform the pleadings to the proof after the trial was underway. However, we nonetheless find that Supreme Court’s determinations allowing plaintiff to advance the Beatty theory at trial, including permitting plaintiff’s expert to offer testimony on the theory, do not constitute reversible error. In our view, the complaint— * * * which reference[s] the February CT scan as a basis for a departure from accepted medical practice — [was] sufficient to notify defendants of the Beatty theory and, as such, permit that theory of liability to be advanced at trial without prejudice. Simply put, we are unpersuaded by defendants’ position that they were not aware of the Beatty theory as a basis for a potential finding of medical malpractice. Boyer v Kamthan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05983, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

, ,

Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Maltreatment Report

The Third Department determined the Commissioner of Children and Family Services should have granted the petition to expunge and amend as unfounded a maltreatment report maintained by the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. Although the denial could properly be based upon hearsay and double hearsay, the maltreatment finding was not based upon substantial evidence:

To establish maltreatment, the agency was required to show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the physical, mental or emotional condition of the child had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired because of a failure by petitioner to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with appropriate supervision or guardianship … . Our review is limited to assessing whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence, meaning “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… .

Here, the proof introduced against petitioner consisted solely of the investigation progress notes and a Family Court order from 1998 that adjudicated petitioner to have neglected another son. The progress notes were prepared by a child protective services caseworker and include her accounts of interviews with numerous individuals, including the child and his therapist, that led her to the conclusion that maltreatment had occurred. Neither the caseworker nor her interview subjects testified before the Administrative Law Judge, however, and the progress notes reflect that the child bore no marks or evident injuries as a result of the maltreatment. In contrast to this meager evidentiary showing, petitioner and his wife both testified and denied that any maltreatment had occurred. Petitioner also asserted, without contradiction, that he was physically incapable of engaging in some of the claimed maltreatment, such as lifting the 110-pound child with one hand. His wife further stated that the child admitted to her that he was lying about the alleged maltreatment. The record suggests a reason why the child might be prompted to lie, as a bitter custody dispute between petitioner and the child’s mother has led to numerous unfounded reports of mistreatment regarding petitioner.

Like any administrative determination, one made after an expungement hearing may be based solely upon hearsay evidence — or even double hearsay evidence — in the appropriate case … . As such, “our concern is not the hearsay nature of the evidence, but whether it is sufficiently relevant and probative to constitute substantial evidence” … . Hearsay evidence will not satisfy that standard if the facts it purportedly establishes are “seriously controverted” … . Serious controversy is precisely what surrounds the hearsay evidence here, given the hearing testimony that the maltreatment had not occurred and that the child had recanted his claims, the proof that motivations may have existed for the child to fabricate the maltreatment, and the total lack of physical evidence suggesting that it occurred. We accordingly agree with petitioner that substantial evidence does not support the challenged determination, which must be annulled as a result … . Matter of Gerald HH. v Carrion, 2015 NY Slip Op 05982, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

, ,

Area in the Vicinity of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Facility Properly Classified as a Statutorily Protected Environmental Habitat

The Third Department affirmed the Secretary of State’s expansion of a statutory “significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat area” along the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Indian Point nuclear power facility.  The petitioner, the owner of Indian Point, sought to have the designation of the area as a statutorily protected environmental habitat annulled. The Third Department (1) explained a court’s powers when reviewing an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations; (2) determined the agency did not engage in formal rulemaking (which would be subject to the stringent procedural requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act); and (3) determined certain documents were properly withheld re: petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests:

When an agency interprets a regulation that it promulgated, deference is afforded to that agency’s interpretive approach unless it is “irrational or unreasonable” … . To this end, the promulgating agency’s interpretation may not be adjudged irrational simply because other rational constructions of the regulatory provision in question exist …, nor because the promulgating agency’s reading of the relevant regulatory language either broadens its plain-language scope … or amounts to a “strict[ly] literal interpretation” … . Furthermore, “the determination of an agency acting pursuant to its authority and within its area of expertise is[, similarly,] entitled to judicial deference” … . In contrast, an agency’s interpretation of one of its own regulations is not entitled to deference if that interpretation contradicts the plain language of the regulation (see Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v Novello, 100 NY2d at 280), and an agency may be deemed to have acted irrationally if an interpretation of a regulation marks an unsubstantiated departure from the agency’s previous position on a given subject … . * * *

State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (a) (i), in pertinent part, defines a “[r]ule” as “the whole or part of each agency statement, regulation or code of general applicability that implements or applies law.” In contrast, State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (b) (iv) excludes from this statutory definition “forms and instructions, interpretive statements and statements of general policy which in themselves have no legal effect but are merely explanatory.” While “there is no clear bright line between a ‘rule’ or ‘regulation’ and an interpretative policy,” an agency does not engage in formal rulemaking when the practical effect of an agency’s updated policy is that a discrete group of regulated entities or individuals likely will be subjected to a greater degree of regulatory scrutiny than are the majority of those regulated by the agency … . When an agency engages in a course of regulatory action that amounts to formal rulemaking but does not comply with the procedural requirements of State Administrative Procedure Act article 2, that regulatory action must be annulled … .

We agree with respondents that the habitat boundaries’ modification that gave rise to Hudson Highlands did not amount to formal rulemaking.  * * *

In response to petitioners’ discovery and Freedom of Information Law requests, respondents withheld a small number of documents pursuant to Public Officers’ Law § 87 (2) (g), which allows for “people within an agency to exchange opinions, advice and criticism freely and frankly, without the chilling prospect of public disclosure” … . Supreme Court correctly concluded that “respondents’ interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the records and in allowing the candid exchange of ‘opinions, advice and criticism'” was valid and outweighed petitioners’ interest in having them. Petitioners argue that respondents waived the deliberative process privilege by describing the agencies’ decision-making process within the scientists’ affidavits. We find petitioners’ claims that respondents have waived the deliberative process privilege to be unpersuasive … . Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v New York State Dept. of State, 2015 NY Slip Op 05988, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Defendant Entitled to Jury Instruction on Agency Defense Re: Drug Sale and Possession Charges

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the agency defense to drug sale and possession charges. Because the request for the instruction was denied, the defendant was granted a new trial.  The Third Department explained the relevant facts and law:

“Under the agency doctrine, ‘a person who acts solely as the agent of a buyer in procuring drugs for the buyer is not guilty of selling the drug to the buyer, or of possessing it with intent to sell it to the buyer'” … . “The issue of whether a defendant is criminally responsible as a seller, or merely a purchaser doing a favor for a friend, is generally a factual question for the jury to resolve on the circumstances of the particular case” … . “A trial court must grant a request for an agency charge when, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, some evidence, however slight[,] supports the inference that the [defendant] was acting, in effect, as an extension of the buyer” … .

Here, defendant did not initiate the subject transactions. Rather, the CI, who was acquainted with defendant, contacted him to initiate both buys. Before the first buy, defendant said to the CI, with regard to the supplier, “when she meets me and you she’s going to sell us the eight,” which shows that defendant aligned himself with the CI on the buyer’s side of the transaction. At the time of the first buy, defendant and the CI met in defendant’s driveway and talked about defendant’s girlfriend, car and job while they waited for the supplier to arrive with the drugs. When the supplier arrived, the CI asked defendant to get the drugs from her so that he could see them before he paid, and defendant complied. Defendant retrieved nine bags of heroin from the supplier, explaining to the CI that there were “nine here cause [he was] gonna get one too”; again, he was identifying himself on the buyer’s side of the transaction. Defendant’s girlfriend testified that he did not benefit from the sales to the CI. People v Nowlan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05973, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Judge’s Flawed Question During Plea Colloquy Required Vacation of the Plea

The Third Department determined County Court’s equating a lack of consent (re: sexual abuse) with the “forcible compulsion” element of the offense required vacation of the plea:

In response to the court’s questioning, defendant admitted that he had subjected the victim to sexual contact by “grabb[ing] her breasts.” County Court then inquired of defendant, “did you do that by forcible compulsion, in other words, without her consent or without her authority?” Forcible compulsion, however, is defined as compelling another “by either [] use of physical force; or [] a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another person” (Penal Law § 130.00 [8]). Defendant answered in the affirmative, and County Court accepted his guilty plea without conducting any further inquiry into the facts or readdressing the element of forcible compulsion.

By equating forcible compulsion with lack of consent, County Court misdefined an essential element of the crime to which defendant was pleading. While defendant was not required to recite facts establishing every element of the crime … , we cannot countenance a conviction that rests upon a misconception of the key element of forcible compulsion … . Because the record fails to establish that defendant understood the nature of the charge or that his guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered, his plea must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court … . People v Marrero, 2015 NY Slip Op 05974, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Multiplicitous Indictment Counts Dismissed/Warrantless Search of Impounded Vehicle Upheld

The Third Department determined several counts of an indictment stemming from a fatal car accident (involving reckless driving under the influence) were multiplicitous and further determined the warrantless search of the impounded vehicle was valid:

An indictment “is multiplicitous when a single offense is charged in more than one count” (People v Alonzo, 16 NY3d 267, 269 [2011]). Accordingly, “[a]n indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . “Where each count requires proof of an element not essential to the other, [however,] an indictment is not multiplicitous” … .

Counts 2, 5 and 8 of the indictment charged defendant with vehicular manslaughter in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.13 (3), which requires proof that defendant (1) committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and (2) had been convicted within the preceding 10 years of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (see Penal Law § 125.13 [3]). Counts 1, 4 and 7 of the indictment charged defendant with aggravated vehicular homicide pursuant to Penal Law § 125.14 (3), which requires proof that defendant (1) committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, (2) engaged in reckless driving and (3) had previously been convicted of a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 violation within the preceding 10 years. As relevant here, a person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree when he or she operates a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), (3) or (4-a) thereby causing the death of another person (see Penal Law § 125.12 [1]).

In our view, these charges were predicated upon the same statutory provisions (see Penal Law §§ 125.13 [3]; 125.14 [3]), act and victim, differing only in the nature of defendant’s impairment. In this regard, defendant was alleged to have been driving while per se intoxicated (counts 1 and 2), in an intoxicated condition (counts 4 and 5) and impaired by a combination of drugs or alcohol and drugs (counts 7 and 8) (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2], [3], [4-a]). The essential elements of both crimes do not address the specific manner in which defendant was impaired; rather, they include only a single offense of some form of impaired driving as defined within Penal Law § 125.12 (1). Accordingly, counts 4 and 7 should have been dismissed as multiplicitous of count 1, and counts 5 and 8 must be dismissed as multiplicitous of count 2 … . * * *

Testimony at the suppression hearing established that, at the request of law enforcement, defendant’s vehicle was removed from the accident scene and taken to an unsecured lot, where it remained for several hours until it was transported — at the direction of a Rensselaer County deputy sheriff — to a secure impound lot. While defendant does not contest the initial towing from the accident scene, he claims that the seizure of the vehicle from the unsecured lot to the secured lot was unconstitutional. We disagree. “It is well settled that once the police possess a reasonable belief that the vehicle was, in some way, associated with the crime and that a search of the vehicle would produce the fruits, instrumentalities, contraband or evidence of the crime the police can conduct[] a warrantless search and seizure of the vehicle” … . Here, the vehicle was moved from a lot where it was easily accessible to any member of the public to the secure lot only after it became clear that it was involved in a fatal accident. People v Hoffman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05976, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Claim for Psychological Injury Should Have Been Upheld—Retail Employee Was Directed to Submit False Reserve Orders for a Product to Deceive Manufacturer

The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a retail employee suffered compensable psychological injury because he was directed by a supervisor to submit false reserve orders for a product in order to deceive the manufacturer.  The Workers’ Compensation Board disagreed and disallowed the claim. The Third Department reinstated the claim, finding the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence:

The WCLJ found claimant’s testimony to be credible and determined, among other things, that he had been directed by a supervisor to submit false reserve orders in order to deceive the manufacturer and that credit card numbers were included in the reserve orders. The WCLJ concluded that claimant sustained a mental injury as a result of “the stress of being directed to engage in deceptive business practices” and that this stress was greater than that experienced in the normal work environment because “[p]ressure to engage in unethical and illegal practices . . . cannot be considered a normal work environment.” The Board subsequently disallowed the claim, finding that, because all of the employees in claimant’s department were pressured to place reserve orders and were given the same instruction, claimant’s stress was not greater than that of similarly situated workers.

We reject this analysis. The Board neither contradicted nor commented upon the findings of the WCLJ that claimant’s supervisors directed him to engage in a deceptive business practice by submitting falsified reserve orders, and it did not exercise its power to reject the underlying credibility determinations … . Thus, the remaining basis for the Board’s conclusion that claimant was not subjected to stress greater than that experienced in a normal workplace is that other employees were similarly directed to engage in wrongful conduct. This analysis is untenable; the imprimatur of “normal” cannot be placed upon a workplace where an employee is directed to carry out a deceptive, unethical or potentially illegal practice because an employer also gave that direction to other employees … . The mere fact that other employees may have received the same instruction cannot support this conclusion. Here, there was no other evidence from which it may be concluded that directions to place false reserve orders constituted part of a normal work environment for similarly situated employees. The employer’s witnesses testified that corrective action — including termination — had been taken when similar practices occurred at the store in the past, and claimant testified that he would have been fired for such conduct in other upscale department stores where he had previously worked. Accordingly, we find that the Board’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Cox v Saks Fifth Ave., 2015 NY Slip Op 06003, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

, ,

Pre-“Padilla” Statement by Counsel that Defendant’s Plea to an “Aggravated Felony” Would Not Result in Deportation Justified a Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Her Conviction

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction.  Defendant alleged she was erroneously told by her attorney (pre “Padilla”) her conviction (for an “aggravated felony”) would not cause her to be deported:

… [D]efendant’s … claim that counsel affirmatively misinformed her about the plea’s deportation consequences is not dependent upon Padilla; rather, it rests upon established law at the time of her plea that defense counsel’s affirmative misrepresentation to a noncitizen regarding the deportation consequences of a contemplated guilty plea constitutes deficient performance so as to satisfy the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim … .

In her affidavit in support of the motion, defendant alleged that her counsel advised her that, although immigration authorities would be notified about her guilty plea, “he did not think anything further would happen.” In fact, the crime of rape in the third degree constitutes an “aggravated felony” that results in mandatory deportation (see 8 USC § 1101 [a] [43] [a]; § 1227 [a] [2] [A] [iii]; § 1229b [a] [3]…). Defendant further averred that, had counsel informed her that she was certain to be deported as a result of her guilty plea, she would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial. As defendant sufficiently alleged that counsel provided incorrect information concerning the deportation consequences that would result from her guilty plea and that she was prejudiced as a result thereof, she was entitled to a hearing on this aspect of her CPL 440.10 motion … . People v Ricketts-simpson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05975, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Two-to-Five-Foot Fall from Edge of Roof to Scaffolding Supported Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action

The Third Department determined a two-to-five foot fall from the edge of a roof to scaffolding properly survived summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

Liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) arises when a worker’s injuries are “‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … . Ordinarily, the adequacy of a safety device is a question of fact, unless the device “‘collapses, slips or otherwise fails to perform its function of supporting the worker'” … .

The distance that Scribner fell from the roof ledge to the scaffolding is disputed. Claimant alleged, in the bill of particulars, that the scaffolding was two feet below the ledge, while Scribner and the project supervisor asserted in their deposition testimony that the scaffolding was four to five feet below the ledge. Regardless of whether the height differential was two, four or five feet, Scribner’s fall is the type of elevation-related risk to which Labor Law § 240 (1) applies … .

The parties’ submissions also raise a question of fact as to whether the scaffolding afforded … adequate protection and, if not, whether the absence of an appropriate safety device was the proximate cause of his injuries … . Scribner v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05993, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Wall Surrounding the Edge of a Roof Is Not a Safety Device

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff’s injury was elevation-related and therefore was covered under Labor Law 240(1).  Plaintiff was standing on a building-roof using hand signals to guide a crane when he fell from the roof. Supreme Court reasoned plaintiff could have accomplished his job while staying away from the edge of the roof and, therefore, the accident was not elevation-related within the meaning of the statute. The Third Department rejected that reasoning and noted that the parapet wall around the edge of the roof was part of the structure of the building and could not, therefore, be considered a safety device:

Supreme Court determined that his injuries did not flow from an elevation-related hazard, as plaintiff was not “required to work at an elevation” and could have stayed away from the edge of the roof by directing the crane operator via cell phone … . This determination, however, ran against the undisputed proof that plaintiff had to work somewhere on the roof in order to signal the crane operator and that hand signaling was the usual method of doing so … . His decision to employ an accepted method of signaling while performing necessary work on the roof, even if a safer method existed, constituted nothing more than “comparative fault that is not a defense under the statute”… .

… A parapet wall surrounded the edge of the roof, but “a permanent appurtenance to a building does not normally constitute the functional equivalent of a scaffold or other safety device within the meaning of the statute” … . Salzer v Benderson Dev. Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06001, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

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