You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

, ,

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

 

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

 

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

 

, ,

Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding

The Third Department determined that the estate of one of the mortgage-holders was a necessary party in a foreclosure proceeding. The court explained the relevant law:

“In an action to foreclose a mortgage, all parties having an interest, including persons holding title to the subject premises, must be made a ‘party . . . to the action'” … . Although defendant did not specifically raise the argument that decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the instant action, “the absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . …. [W]here two individuals are the co-holders of a mortgage and one dies, the plaintiffs in a related foreclosure action would be the living mortgagee — or, in this case, his assignee … — and the personal representative of the deceased mortgagee … .

Here, given the lack of evidence that the corpus and distribution of decedent’s estate have previously been determined, such determination for the first time could inequitably affect decedent’s estate … . We find that decedent’s estate is therefore a necessary party to this action, as “[t]he rights, interests and equities of all of the parties claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises . . . should be settled and determined before any judgment of foreclosure and sale is entered” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Sulyman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05989, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

People Could Not Show Good Cause for the Nearly Five-Year Pre-Indictment Delay—Indictment Dismissed

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined, in a child pornography case, the nearly five-year delay between when defendant’s computer was seized and defendant questioned (2009) and the indictment (2013) required dismissal of the indictment. The case was not complex and no additional information beyond that gathered in 2009 was needed to indict. The People therefore did not demonstrate good cause for the extensive delay:

The parties agree that there has been a protracted preindictment delay that places the burden on the People to establish good cause for that delay … . The People state in their brief that there are no issues of fact regarding the issue before this Court and the record on appeal provides an adequate basis to determine whether the protracted delay was justified.

In determining whether there is an undue delay, the trial court must consider “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . Here, although defendant was not incarcerated during the period of delay and the nature of the charges are serious, the extent of the delay was clearly extensive. The People attribute the delay to the fact that the matter was initially referred to the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York for prosecution, and point to vague references of personnel changes within that office, as well as that office’s decision, at some point, not to prosecute.

This was not a complex legal matter and the record establishes that no further evidence was needed in order to charge defendant beyond that gathered in the 2009 … .  People v Montague, 2015 NY Slip Op 05721, 3rd Dept 7-2-15

 

,

Defendants Ordered to Dismantle and Remove Boathouses Built Without Permits/Immediate Neighbors Had Standing to Bring an Action to Enjoin the Zoning Violations

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that boathouses constructed without permits (required by the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code [SBC] and the Village of Lake Placid/Town of North Elba Land Use Code [LUC]) must be completely dismantled and removed.  The defendants were aware from the start that proceeding with the building of the boathouses without permits would be at their own risk. The permits were ultimately denied. The opinion is extensive and much of it is devoted to explaining the litigation/appeal history and refuting defendants’ arguments (not addressed here).  With respect to the finding that the neighbors had standing to bring an action to enjoin the asserted zoning violations re: one of the parcels (referred to as the “children’s parcel”), the court wrote:

As a threshold matter, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the neighbors have standing to challenge the asserted zoning violations and to seek injunctive relief against the children. Although municipal officials indeed are tasked with enforcing zoning ordinances within their boundaries (see Town Law § 268 [2]), this “does not prevent . . . private property owner[s] who suffer[] special damages from maintaining an action seeking to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages to vindicate [their] discrete, separate identifiable interest[s]” … . To establish standing to maintain a private common-law action to enjoin zoning violations, a private plaintiff must establish that, due to the defendant’s activities, he or she will sustain special damages that are “different in kind and degree from the community generally” and that the asserted interests fall “within the zone of interest to be protected” by the statute or ordinance at issue … .

To that end, the neighbors both alleged and submitted proof that they own land (improved with single-family homes) on either side of the children’s parcel and that the children’s boathouse was built without the permits required by the LUC and SBC. The neighbors also demonstrated that the children’s boathouse violates various provisions of the LUC, including those governing set-backs and prohibiting accessory structures on land that lacks a principal building (see Joint Village of Lake Placid/Town of North Elba Land Use Code part IV, art III, § 4; art V, appendix F [II]). Where, as here, the offending premises are immediately adjacent to the neighbors’ property, “a loss of value may be presumed from the depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood, and the [neighbors] need not allege specific injury” … . We find that the neighbors’ specific allegations of close proximity give rise to an inference of damage and injury, thereby permitting them to maintain action No. 2. Moreover, the neighbors have demonstrated that their interests fall within the “zone of interest” protected by the LUC, in that violations thereof adversely affect their privacy and property values … . Indeed, we recognized as much in our prior decision permitting the neighbors to intervene, concluding that they “have an interest in the litigation by virtue of their status as owners of adjoining premises” … . Town of N. Elba v Grimditch, 2015 NY Slip Op 05740, 3rd Dept 7-2-15

 

,

Petitioner Was Entitled to a Reduction in the Assessed Value of a Home Depot Store Based Upon Its Expert’s Appraisal

The Third Department determined the trial court had properly found petitioner’s expert-appraisal of the value of a Home Depot store to be the most appropriate. Petitioner was therefore entitled to a reduction in the assessed value of the property. The Third Department carefully explained the valuation methods used by the competing experts (that discussion is not summarized here). As to the courts’ role in property-tax assessment proceedings, the Third Department explained:

A local tax assessment is presumptively valid and, to overcome that presumption, a petitioner must present substantial evidence that the property is overvalued … . Petitioner met this threshold burden here through its submission of the detailed appraisal of Harland, a certified real estate appraiser with considerable experience, who utilized accepted methodologies and adequately set forth his calculations and the necessary details regarding the properties … . The appropriateness of the comparable properties used by Harland in his analysis goes to the weight to be given to his appraisal, not, as respondents contend, the appraisal’s competency to raise a valid dispute regarding valuation … .

With petitioner having rebutted the presumptive validity of the assessments, Supreme Court was obligated to “weigh the entire record, including evidence of claimed deficiencies in the assessment, to determine whether petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that its property has been overvalued” … . “Where, as here, conflicting expert evidence is presented, we defer to the trial court’s resolution of credibility issues, and consider whether the court’s determination of the fair market value of the subject property is supported by or against the weight of the evidence” … . Matter of Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v Assessor of the Town of Queensbury, 2015 NY Slip Op 05556, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

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