You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Absolute Privilege Attaches to Statement Made by a Nonparticipant in the Litigation Which Is Republished by an Attorney In the Course of the Litigation

The Third Department determined an action based upon the republication of an allegedly defamatory statement (made by a nonparticipant in the litigation) by an assistant attorney general in the course of a medical malpractice case was precluded by the absolute privilege afforded attorneys in matters related to litigation:

Statements made by parties and their counsel in the context of a legal action or proceeding are protected by an absolute privilege so long as, “by any view or under any circumstances, they are pertinent to the litigation” … . Allowing such statements or writings to form the basis of an action for defamation “would be an impediment to justice, because it would hamper the search for truth and prevent making inquiries with that freedom and boldness which the welfare of society requires” … . A liberal standard guides the inquiry of what is pertinent … , and encompasses “any statement that may possibly or plausibly be relevant or pertinent, with the barest rationality” … . Moreover, the burden rests with claimant “to conclusively, and as a matter of law, establish the impertinency and the irrelevance of the statement” … .

Here, claimant asserts that the memorandum was prepared by a nonparticipant to the litigation which removes it from the protection of the absolute privilege; however, this contention ignores that claimant’s action is grounded in the republication of the alleged defamatory statement by the AAG, whose statements are afforded the protection … . It is evident that the AAG turned over the memorandum after the malpractice litigation had been commenced in federal court … and, further, the statements in the memorandum were clearly pertinent to the malpractice litigation, as they concerned allegations that were relevant to the treatment of the inmate … . McPhillips v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05242, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

Lien for Attorney’s Fees (Re: Workers’ Compensation Award) Can Be Satisfied Before Reimbursing Municipality for Benefits Paid by the Municipality to the Injured Corrections Officer Pursuant the General Municipal Law

The Third Department determined that a lien for attorney’s fees could be attached to Workers’ Compensation benefits prior to reimbursing a municipality for benefits paid to the municipal employee pursuant to the General Municipal Law. Claimant corrections officer was injured on the job. Under General Municipal Law 207-c municipal employers are required to pay full wages to corrections officers injured in the performance of their duties.  Workers’ Compensation Law 30 (3) provides that the amount of the payments made under the General Municipal Law shall be credited against any award of compensation pursuant to the Workers Compensation Law. The municipality argued it was entitled to the entire amount paid to the employee and the amount should not be reduced by the attorney’s fees (a lien on the Workers’ Compensation award).  The Third Department disagreed:

General Municipal Law § 207-c requires municipal employers to pay full wages to correction officers who are injured in the performance of their duties. Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3) provides that the amount of such payments “shall be credited against any award of compensation” that may also be made to such an officer. The employer contends that the mandatory language of the Workers’ Compensation Law provision entitles employers to full credit for such payments and, thus, precludes the attachment of a lien for counsel fees. However, Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 likewise uses mandatory language in providing that, when approved by the Board, counsel fees “shall become a lien upon the compensation awarded . . . [and] shall be paid therefrom only in the manner fixed by the [B]oard” (emphasis added). The lien attaches when the compensation is awarded “and takes precedence over the employer’s right to reimbursement of funds previously paid to the claimant-employee” … . The purpose of enacting Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3) was not to preclude counsel fees, but “to avoid duplicate benefits to an injured [officer], the combined total of which might exceed the salary [the officer] would have received for the period” if the injury had not occurred … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3) must be harmoniously interpreted with the Workers’ Compensation Law as a whole and with General Municipal Law § 207-c … . We find nothing in the statutory language indicating a legislative intent to treat employees who receive benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c differently from other injured employees by departing from the statutory scheme for payment of counsel fees set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 24. Matter of McCabe v Albany County Sheriff’s Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 05236, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

,

Patient’s Suicide Was Not a Foreseeable Consequence of Doctor’s Alleged Failure to Properly Diagnose and Treat Patient’s Abdominal Pain

The Third Department affirmed summary judgment granted to defendant doctor (Skezas).  Plaintiff alleged the doctor failed to properly diagnose and/or treat plaintiff’s decedent’s abdominal pain. Decedent was told by the doctor he may have cancer, which, if not treated, could be fatal within 6 to 12 months. The doctor set up an appointment for plaintiff’s decedent with a specialist.  Before seeing the specialist, plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. The Third Department determined plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide was not a foreseeable consequence of the actions ascribed to the doctor:

“An intervening act will be deemed a superseding cause and will serve to relieve [a] defendant of liability when the act is of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuates [the] defendant’s negligence from the ultimate injury that responsibility for the injury may not be reasonably attributed to the defendant” … . Applying this rule to a person’s intentional act of taking his or her own life, negligent conduct can only support liability for another person’s suicide under certain circumstances and where suicide is a foreseeable consequence of such conduct … . Here, Skezas did not practice psychiatry, decedent was not confined to Skezas’ care and Skezas did not advise decedent to commit suicide. The possibility that decedent would choose to take his own life in the absence of any actual terminal cancer diagnosis and rather than taking advantage of the second medical opinion — regarding a diagnosis and/or pain management — from the specialist that Skezas had secured for decedent is not a foreseeable consequence of the alleged negligent acts … . Stein v Kendal At Ithaca, 2015 NY Slip Op 05246, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

Zoning Board’s Interpretation of Village Ordinances Upheld—Keeping of Chickens Is Not an Allowed “Residential Use”

The Third Department determined the village zoning board of appeals’ interpretation of a zoning ordinance had a rational basis.  Petitioner sought a ruling allowing him to keep chickens in a residential zone. Because “poultry husbandry” was specifically mentioned in the zoning ordinances as an agricultural use, and was not mentioned as an allowed residential use, the board’s interpretation was upheld as “neither irrational nor unreasonable:”

Here, Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-20 (B) states that the permitted uses in an R1 residential district are “one- and two-family dwellings” and “accessory uses.” The code allows for accessory uses that are “of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the structure, such as garages, outbuildings, swimming pools, energy collection devices and the keeping of domesticated animals” (Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-16). The code also defines “agriculture” as “[t]he use of land for agricultural purposes, including tilling of the soil, dairying, pasture, apiculture, arboriculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, forestry, animal and poultry husbandry and the necessary accessory uses for packing or storing of products” (Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-16). The code further states that “[a]ny use not listed as permitted [w]ithin a [z]oning district is assumed to be prohibited in that [z]oning district” (Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-191). Matter of Meier v Village of Champlain Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 05245, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

Court Deferred to the Agency’s Interpretation of a Statute Because the Interpretation Involved Knowledge and Understanding of the Underlying Operational Practices (In the Usual Case, a Court Will Not Defer to an Agency’s Interpretation of a Statute)/The Term “Business Enterprise” in Tax Law 14 (a) Refers to the Taxable Entity, Not the Legal Entity

The Third Department deferred to the interpretation of a statute by the Tax Appeals Tribunal which found that petitioners were not entitled to Qualified Enterprise Zone Enterprise (QEZE) tax reduction credits and refundable Empire Zone (EZ) wage credits.  The case turned on the Tribunal’s definition of a business enterprise.  The Tribunal determined the term refers to the taxable entity, not the legal entity. Because the interpretation of the relevant statute, Tax Law 14 (a), involved knowledge and understanding of the underlying operational practices, the court deferred to the agency’s determination. (In the usual case a court need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute):

The parties’ primary disagreement here centers on whether the term business enterprise under Tax Law § 14 (a) refers to the taxable entity or the legal entity. The Tax Law does not define business enterprise, and this Court will “defer to the governmental agency charged with the responsibility for administration of [a] statute in those cases where interpretation or application involves knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices” … . While, as a general rule, courts will not defer to administrative agencies in matters of pure statutory interpretation, where, as here, the question is “‘one of specific application of a broad statutory term in a proceeding in which the agency administering the statute must determine it initially,'” deference is appropriate … . To prevail over the Tribunal’s construction of the statute, petitioners must establish that their “interpretation of the statute is not only plausible, but also that it is the only reasonable construction”… .

In our view, it cannot be said that the Tribunal acted irrationally in construing the term business enterprise in accordance with an entity’s classification for state and federal income tax purposes. Matter of Ayoub v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 05240, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

,

Supreme Court Justices Who Are “Certificated” to Continue on the Bench at Age 70 Are Entitled to Both Their Pensions and Their Salaries

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing Supreme Court, determined Judges who reach the age of 70 and are “certificated to continue their services on the Supreme Court bench” are entitled to receive both their pensions and their judicial salaries. To hold otherwise violates the plain meaning of Retirement and Social Security law 212 (1) which reads: “any retired person may continue as retired and, without loss, suspension or diminution of his or her retirement allowance, earn [an amount not greater than statutorily prescribed] in a position or positions in public service.” That same provision provides that “there shall be no earning limitations under the provisions of [Retirement and Social Security Law § 212] on or after the calendar year in which any retired person attains age [65]”… . Matter of Loehr v Administrative Bd. of the Cts. of the State of N.Y.2015 NY Slip Op 05243, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, , ,

The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)

Plaintiff was injured when a piece of lumber fell off an open truck owned by the county.  Plaintiff was driving her vehicle when the debris came off the county truck and struck her in the head. The county truck was being used to transport debris in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. The Third Department determined that, by transporting unsecured debris in an open truck, the county had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a (1) and, therefore, the county was negligent per se.  The court interpreted Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a to mean that a prima facie case of a violation of the statute is made out by proof a load in an open truck was not covered. Once that showing is made, the owner of the truck will not be deemed to have violated the statute, despite the lack of a cover, if the owner can show the load was secure such that no cover was required. No such showing was possible here.  The court rejected the county’s argument that the emergency-related immunity conferred by the Executive Law applied here. The court noted the purpose of the Executive-Law immunity is to allow the government to make decisions during an emergency—which roads to clear first, for instance—without fear of liability, but the “emergency” immunity did not insulate the county from liability for its negligence in every context:

Executive Law § 25 (1) provides that, “[u]pon the threat or occurrence of a disaster, the chief executive of any political subdivision is hereby authorized and empowered to and shall use any and all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources of his [or her] political subdivision in such manner as may be necessary or appropriate to cope with the disaster or any emergency resulting therefrom.” To be sure, this statute, which vests a political subdivision’s chief executive “with the power to respond to a local disaster or the immediate threat of a disaster, . . . reflects an awareness by the . . . Legislature that in emergency situations prompt and immediate unilateral action is necessary to preserve and protect life and property” … . Consistent with that awareness, the statute further provides, as noted previously, that “[a] political subdivision shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of any officer or employee in carrying out the provisions of this section” (Executive Law § 25 [5]).

In our view, the scope of the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 is clear. When faced with a disaster, a political subdivision’s chief executive may, for example, decide where to set up a makeshift hospital or aid station, prioritize and determine which streets to clear or allocate supplies and personnel as he or she sees fit, and such discretionary determinations, in turn, will not serve as a basis upon which to expose the political subdivision to liability. In other words, a disgruntled homeowner who is confronted with a flooded basement and is living on an impassable residential street cannot seek to hold a locality liable for damages simply because its chief executive deemed it more important to first clear a path to the local hospital or to pump out the holding cells in the local police station. That said, the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, to our analysis, grant a political subdivision carte blanche to perform a discretionary function in any manner that it sees fit — particularly in a manner that poses a danger to the traveling public. Here, a valid — and discretionary — determination may well have been made that the removal of storm debris from, among other locations, the DPW garage was a priority and, further, that transporting such debris in open containers was the most efficient and expeditious way to do so. The discretionary nature of these broad, resource-based decisions, however, did not obviate the need for defendants to comply with the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1) in terms of the actual transport of such debris. As the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, in our view, extend to the particular facts of this case, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. …

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful to operate on any public highway any open truck or trailer being utilized for the transportation of any loose substances, unless said truck or trailer has a cover, tarpaulin or other device of a type and specification . . . which completely closes in the opening on. . . said truck or trailer while said truck or trailer shall be so operated, so as to prevent the falling of any such substances therefrom. However, if the load is arranged so that no loose substance can fall from or blow out of such truck, the covering is not necessary.” * * *

In our view, in order to discharge her initial burden on her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff need only have shown that defendants failed to utilize a cover; at that point, the burden shifted to defendants to demonstrate that no statutory violation actually occurred because the load was arranged in such a manner that no cover was necessary. To hold otherwise would place a nearly insurmountable burden upon plaintiff, as the manner in which the container was loaded and the contents were arranged inevitably lies within the exclusive knowledge of defendants… . Pierce v Hickey, 2015 NY Slip Op 04914, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined the arbitrator did not have the authority to modify an award by including an additional amount for interest. Even if the interest should have been awarded initially as a matter of law, modification by adding interest exceeded the powers enumerated in CPLR 7511. The court explained the arbitrator’s authority in this context:

“[I]t has been recognized that an arbitrator’s power to modify an award is extremely limited and that, absent compliance with the statutory requirements, an arbitrator is without authority to modify an award” … . The statutory requirements for modification are set forth in CPLR 7509, which allows an arbitrator to modify his or her award upon the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (c) if a timely application for modification is made. Because a timely request was made by petitioner, modification was permissible if: “1. there was a miscalculation of figures or a mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award; or 2. the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or 3. the award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy”(CPLR 7511 [c]). The arbitrator determined that the first two grounds were inapplicable, but that modification was warranted because the failure to assess the requested interest constituted an imperfection in the form of the original award.

Supreme Court correctly determined that CPLR 7511 (c) (3) had no applicability to the modification at issue here, which significantly affected the amount of the award and “was not merely one of form, but one which affect[ed] the substantive rights of the parties” … . Even accepting as true that the arbitrator was obliged to award interest as a matter of law …, “[i]t is clear that an arbitrator’s award cannot be . . . modified due to an error of fact or law unless the correction comes within the corrective or regulatory sections of the CPLR” … . Because the error here does not, the arbitrator lacked authority to correct it … .Matter of David Frueh Contr., LLC (BCI Constr., Inc.), 2015 NY Slip Op 04913, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

,

Presumption, Pursuant to Banking Law 675, that a Joint Bank Account Created a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship Is Not Triggered Unless the Signature Card for the Account Indicates a Right of Survivorship Was Intended

The Third Department determined petitioner, whose name was on a joint bank account with decedent and another, was not entitled to one-half of the proceeds in the account upon decedent’s death. The court explained that the presumption (Banking Law 675) that a joint bank account creates a joint tenancy with right of survivorship is triggered only when the signature card for the account indicates the parties intended the right of survivorship to apply.  Here the signature card made no mention of the right of survivorship:

Banking Law § 675 (a) provides, in relevant part, that, “[w]hen a deposit of cash . . . has been made . . . in the name of [the] depositor . . . and another person and in form to be paid or delivered to either, or the survivor of them, such deposit . . . and any additions thereto made, by either of such persons, . . . shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants and the same, together with all additions and accruals thereon, . . . may be paid or delivered to either during the lifetime of both or to the survivor after the death of one of them.” Further, Banking Law § 675 (b) provides that “[t]he making of such deposit . . . in such form shall, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, be prima facie evidence, in any action or proceeding to which the . . . surviving depositor. . . is a party, of the intention of both depositors . . . to create a joint tenancy and to vest title to such deposit . . ., and additions and accruals thereon, in such survivor.” Thus, “[w]here an account has been formed in compliance with the statute, it is presumed, absent a showing of fraud or undue influence, that the depositors intended to create a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship” … . That said, the statutory presumption embodied in Banking Law § 675 (b) will not be triggered unless the signature card for the account in question specifically references rights of survivorship … . Assuming the statutory presumption has been invoked, the burden then shifts to the party challenging the survivorship rights “to establish — by clear and convincing evidence — fraud, undue influence, lack of capacity or, as [respondent] asserts here, that the account[] [was] only opened as a matter of convenience and [was] never intended to be [a] joint account[]” … .

Here, the signature card for the Citizens money market account contains no survivorship language. Accordingly, under prevailing case law, petitioner simply is not entitled to the presumption afforded by Banking Law § 675 (b) … . Matter of Farrar, 2015 NY Slip Op 04902, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

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