You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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

 

Preventing a Party from Carrying Out Its Agreement Constitutes a Material Breach

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly held that defendants breached the contract. Plaintiff owned a business which produced and sold aggregate stone. Plaintiff entered a lease agreement with defendants which allowed plaintiff to remove stone from a quarry on defendants’ property and required that defendants pay “rent” based upon the amount of stone removed. No stone was removed for some time. Defendants sent a letter indicating they would consider the lease null and void unless plaintiff started up the business within 90 days. The parties then entered discussions, some stone was removed and rent was paid. Thereafter, the defendants unilaterally declared the lease null and void, ordered plaintiff to remove its equipment, and prevented plaintiff from entering the property. Supreme Court found plaintiff had done enough to comply with defendants’ initial demand that plaintiff start up its business and, therefore, defendants’ actions, which prevented plaintiff from carrying out its agreement, constituted a material breach. The Third Department agreed:

“In the case of every contract there is an implied undertaking on the part of each party that he [or she] will not intentionally and purposely do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out the agreement on his [or her] part” … . In the April 1996 letter, [defendant] advised [plaintiff]  that the lease was null and void, threatened legal action if plaintiff did not “promptly” remove its equipment from the quarry, and stated that [defendant] did not consider himself bound by the lease because it was void. Two months later, defendants’ counsel advised plaintiff’s counsel that it was defendants’ position that the lease had been rescinded and that plaintiff “ha[d] no right to enter upon the property.” … “[R]efusing to permit the other party to perform is a breach of contract” … . Here, defendants’ unilateral declaration that the lease was null and void, and their threat of legal action if plaintiff did not promptly remove its equipment, followed shortly thereafter by the statement of defendants’ counsel that plaintiff had no right to enter the property, constituted a refusal to permit plaintiff to perform. Galusha & Sons, LLC v Champlain Stone, Ltd, 2015 NY Slip Op 06286, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

,

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

 

Criteria for Common Law or Implied Indemnification Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendants in a construction-accident case, the Third Department clearly explained the criteria for common law or implied indemnification.  In a nutshell, any negligence by the party seeking indemnification for payments made to the injured party on behalf of a negligent tortfeasor will preclude recovery. Common law or implied indemnification applies only to parties who are liable vicariously without fault:

“The principle of common-law, or implied indemnification, permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party. Since the predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine” … . Accordingly, in order “[t]o establish a claim for common-law indemnification, the party seeking indemnity must prove not only that it was not guilty of any negligence beyond the statutory liability, but must also prove that the proposed indemnitor was guilty of some negligence that contributed to the cause of the accident” … . Hackert v Emmanuel Cong. United Church of Christ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06192, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

,

Landlord With Notice of a Tenant’s Dog’s Vicious Propensities May Be Liable to the Injured Plaintiff

In finding that there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in a dog-bite case, the Third Department noted that a landlord with notice of a dog’s vicious propensities can be liable to the injured plaintiff:

“A landlord may be liable for the attack by a dog kept by a tenant if the landlord has actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities and maintains sufficient control over the premises to require the animal to be removed or confined” … . Defendant was empowered to require the [tenants] to remove the animal and, indeed, its site manager testified that he took steps to do so once he learned of the dog’s existence in September 2012. Rodgers v Horizons At Monticello, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06189, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant

The Third Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant high school in a negligent supervision case. Plaintiff’s son, LaValley, was assaulted by another student, Breyette, after plaintiff had alerted school officials about threats of violence made by Breyette against her son. Breyette had a history of assaultive behavior for which he was suspended in middle school. LaValley was punched 37 times in the school cafeteria in close proximity to a teacher who did not intervene and who was not aware of the conflict between the two students. The Third Department noted that, in determining a summary judgment motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . Where a fellow student intentionally injures another, the duty is breached if the school had actual or constructive notice of the conduct that caused the injury such that the acts of the fellow student could have been reasonably anticipated … . The adequacy of supervision and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for the jury … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmovant …, we note that Breyette had a history of assaultive behavior, including a previous assault against LaValley in middle school that resulted in Breyette’s out-of-school suspension. There is also evidence that, within the month prior to the assault, Breyette specifically threatened violence against LaValley, and plaintiff testified that she immediately informed the high school principal about this threat. Plaintiff also testified that she brought up the conflict between LaValley and Breyette during a meeting with the principal and her son’s teachers. Although the principal acknowledged that plaintiff had informed him about the conflict and he testified that he spoke to Breyette about it, Breyette denied that the principal had spoken to him prior to the attack. The attack itself occurred in the school cafeteria, in close proximity to a teacher who had not been notified of the threat or the conflict between the two students. According to Breyette, he calmly approached LaValley, called his name to get his attention and proceeded to punch him in the head 37 times without any adult intervention. He did not stop until another student intervened. In light of this evidence, we agree with Supreme Court that factual issues exist with respect to the adequacy of defendants’ supervision and whether the lack of adequate supervision was a proximate cause of LaValley’s injuries … . LaValley v Northeastern Clinton Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06187, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

, ,

Conversion of Water to Steam and Steam to Water Did Not Constitute a Manufacturing Process—Therefore Petitioner Was Not Entitled to Manufacturing Tax Credits in Connection with the Operation of Its “Boiling Water” Nuclear Power Facilities—The Certification Prerequisite for Pollution Tax Credits Is Not Preempted by Federal Law which Regulates the Construction and Operation of Nuclear Power Facilities

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that petitioner, the owner of two nuclear power plants, was not entitled to manufacturing tax credits or pollution tax credits under the Tax Law. The production of electricity is specifically excluded from the range of “manufacturing” for which manufacturing credits are available. The petitioner argued that the water which is turned into steam and then back into water (to operate the turbines) constituted a manufacturing process within the meaning of the Tax Law. The Third Department disagreed, describing the process as recycling, not manufacturing. The pollution tax credits are available only to facilities certified by the Department of Environmental Conservation as compliant with state environmental, public health and sanitary rules. Petitioner’s facilities were not so certified. The Third Department determined that the state certification requirement was not preempted by federal law, which exclusively regulates the construction and operation of nuclear power facilities, because tax credits do not regulate the construction or operation of such facilities. Petitioner was not, therefore, entitled to pollution tax credits. With regard to the manufacturing tax credits, the court explained:

Manufacturing is defined as “the process of working raw materials into wares suitable for use or which gives new shapes, new quality or new combinations to matter which already has gone through some artificial process by the use of machinery . . . and other similar equipment” (Tax Law former § 210 [12] [b] [ii] [A]), and “‘processing’ speaks to an industrial activity related to manufacturing” … . Here, the water that is converted to steam by petitioner’s assets is then converted back to its original form as water and then to steam again in an ongoing, continuous cycle that makes no permanent change in the water and yields no final product. This is more akin to recycling than to manufacturing. On these facts, we cannot find it irrational for the Tribunal to conclude that the claimed assets were not principally engaged in producing any tangible property other than electricity … . Petitioner has neither established that its interpretation of the governing statute is the only reasonable construction nor that the Tribunal’s interpretation was “irrational or unreasonable”…  and, thus, has not shown that the Tribunal’s determination that it is ineligible for the manufacturing tax credits should be reversed.  Matter of Constellation Nuclear Power Plants LLC v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06183, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

Ruling that Subject Child Could Not Visit Father in the Presence of Father’s Other Children Is Against Established Policy and Was Not Supported by an Adequate Record—Matter Sent Back for Development of Evidence

Although the custody modification awarding sole custody to mother was upheld by the Third Department, the court was troubled by the requirement that father’s other children could not be present during father’s parenting time with the subject child.  The restriction goes against the general policy that bonds with siblings should be strengthened and the record was not sufficient to warrant the ruling.  The matter was sent back for further development of the evidence:

… [T]here is a dearth of record evidence supporting the provision limiting all parenting time with the father to periods when the child’s older half siblings are not present. Considering the father’s testimony upon cross-examination admitting to some prior unspecified incidents apparently involving the corporal punishment of his older children, meaningful support was not wholly lacking. These prior incidents had resulted in the imposition of supervised visitation with the older children. However, there was no evidence produced to clarify or explain any detail or establish any of the circumstances underlying these admissions. No documents or other proof or testimony was offered or entered. The father testified that the restrictions that had previously been imposed had expired at the time of the hearing. Nothing more was revealed, and the underlying facts were left wholly undeveloped.

Despite the argument by the attorney for the child that limiting the father’s time with this child to periods when the half siblings are not present will protect the child by allowing the father to focus on the child exclusively, the provision is troubling. The law strongly favors the development and encouragement of sibling bonds … . The father’s apparent history of inappropriate corporal punishment certainly raises issues of significant concern. Nonetheless, the issue is too poorly developed in the record to support the argument advanced by the attorney for the child.  Matter of Demers v McLear, 2015 NY Slip Op 06178, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

,

Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed and Sentences Vacated—Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Greater and Lesser Counts Be Submitted to the Jury in the Alternative, Although a Clear-Cut Error, Did Not Deprive the Defendant of Meaningful Representation

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to dismissal of the inclusory concurrent counts and the vacation of the sentences imposed thereon, but was not entitled to reversal based upon defense counsel’s failure to request the that the inclusory concurrent counts be presented to the jury in the alternative (conviction on the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count).  Although the omission was clear-cut error on defense counsel’s part, the error did not deprive defendant of effective assistance:

…. [T]he two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree are inclusory concurrent counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree … . “When inclusory counts are submitted for consideration, they must be submitted in the alternative since a conviction on the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count” … . Therefore, defendant’s misdemeanor convictions of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree must be reversed and the concurrent, one-year sentences vacated … .

We are not persuaded, however, that defense counsel’s failure to request an alternative charge on these counts “elevates this case to the level of one of those rare cases where a single lapse can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” … . Although counsel erred on a clear-cut issue …, such an error must be viewed in the context of the entire representation, particularly in light of the other charges that defendant faced. Most importantly here, counsel’s error appears to arise from his failure to properly consider the misdemeanor charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. While defendant was certainly entitled to representation on those charges, defendant had previously been convicted of a felony drug offense and faced felony charges of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Given the vastly disparate potential outcomes related to the felony and misdemeanor offenses with which defendant was charged, particularly in light of his prior felony drug conviction …, and absent any proof that counsel’s failure was greater than that of failing to properly attend to the misdemeanor charges, we do not find that defendant was deprived of meaningful representation … . People v Vanguilder, 2015 NY Slip Op 06175, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

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