You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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

 

, ,

Contract Merged with the Deed and Any Rights Afforded Purchaser by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act Were Extinguished Upon Transfer of Title

After transfer of title, the purchaser alleged that the property had been damaged between the execution of the purchase contract and the transfer of title. The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded the seller. The property was sold “as is” and the contract did not survive the transfer of title.  Any rights granted purchaser under the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (UVPRA), which allows for rescission in some cases, were extinguished upon the transfer of title:

Unless a land sale contract expressly provides otherwise, a vendor bears the risk of loss until legal title or possession has been transferred to the purchaser … . However, a contract for the sale of real property merges with the deed and, as a result, the terms of the contract do not survive transfer of title unless the parties clearly specify otherwise … . Here, the terms and conditions of the auction provided that the sale would be governed by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (hereinafter UVPRA), which provides a purchaser with the right to rescind the sale contract or recover money paid toward the purchase price under certain circumstances (see General Obligations Law § 5-1311 [1] [a]). However, there was no indication that plaintiff’s rights under the UVPRA would survive transfer of title. In fact, the terms and conditions provided that the property would be sold “as is” and that a purchaser would not have recourse against defendant for any defects stemming from the sale. Therefore, any rights that plaintiff may have asserted under the UVPRA were extinguished when title was transferred to plaintiff. Burkins & Foley Trucking & Stor., Inc. v County of Albany, 2015 NY Slip Op 05252, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

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

 

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

 

,

The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons

In a lawsuit stemming from allegedly slanderous remarks made by defendants in connection with plaintiff’s termination from employment by the defendant school district, the Third Department determined plaintiff’s petition for a name-clearing hearing should have been dismissed, because there was no evidence defendants disclosed the relevant letters to anyone, and the jury should not have been allowed to consider rumor-related “ostracism and rejection” damages, because there was no evidence defendants were responsible for the alleged repetition of the slander by third persons. A new trial on damages was ordered:

Proof of “ostracism and rejection” to establish damages for defamation is only admissible if the proof is “‘the direct and well-connected result'” of a defamatory statement at issue … . Further, even when a defendant’s slanderous statement is connected by proof to that statement’s republication, “‘one who utters a slander . . . is not responsible for its voluntary and unjustifiable repetition, without his [or her] authority or request, by others over whom he [or she] has no control and who thereby make themselves liable to the person injured'” … . This is because “each person who repeats the defamatory statement is responsible for the resulting damages” … .

Plaintiff’s proof regarding rumors and ostracism fail these tests. Plaintiff and her witnesses offered no proof that directly connected [defendants’] slanderous statements to the ostracism that plaintiff allegedly suffered … . Further, even assuming that the content of the rumors allegedly spread by community members allowed for a reasonable inference that said community members were aware of [defendants’] slanderous statements, proof of republication was nonetheless improper given the absence of evidence that defendants had any knowledge of or played any role in such republication … . Compounding the effect of the error, Supreme Court did not instruct the jury that plaintiff had the burden of proving that the ostracism harms that plaintiff allegedly suffered were actually connected to [defendants’] statements, despite defendants’ request that it do so. Wilcox v Newark Val. Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04890, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Approval of an MRI Within Seven Years of Closure of Claimant’s Case Effectively Reopened the Case—Transfer to the Special Fund for Closed Cases Was Error

The Third Department determined the fact that an MRI had been approved demonstrated that the claimant’s case had not been closed for the requisite seven years. Liability therefore was not shifted to the Special Fund for closed cases:

Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, the Special Fund becomes liable for claims that are reopened more than seven years from the date of the injury and three years after the last payment of compensation … . There is no dispute that this case was initially closed as of June 20, 2005. In its amended decision, the Board determined that the case was first reopened in April 2012 when the MRI was requested, but closed once that application was approved. Finding that the case was again reopened when surgery was requested on June 26, 2012, the Board determined that the requisite seven-year time period had passed, shifting liability to the Special Fund.

This sequence calls into question whether the case was “truly closed” when the MRI request was approved. We have previously recognized that a “decision authorizing [an] MRI [does] not constitute a true closing of the case as [the] claimant’s future treatment depended upon the results of the MRI and, thus, further action was contemplated although not planned at that time” … . The same holds true here. As such, we conclude that the Board erred in concluding that the case was closed when the MRI was authorized. Correspondingly, since the case was reopened when the MRI was requested in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period, liability does not shift to the Special Fund. Matter of Bank v Village of Tuckahoe, 2015 NY Slip Op 04894, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Even When the Injured Worker, Who Had Received Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Successfully Sues His Employer (As Opposed to a “Stranger”) for His Injuries, the Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has a Lien Against the Recovery Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law 29(1)

The Third Department noted that, even though the worker who had received workers’ compensation benefits successfully sued his employer (as opposed to a third party) for his injuries, the workers’ compensation carrier still had a lien against the recovery (Workers’ Compensation Law 29(1)):

“When a claimant obtains recovery in a civil action for the same injuries that were the predicate for workers’ compensation benefits, the carrier has a lien against any recovery (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [1]), even where the action is brought against an employer” … . Indeed, as the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, “‘[Workers’ Compensation Law § ] 29, read in its entirety and in context, clearly reveals a legislative design to provide for reimbursement of the compensation carrier whenever a recovery is obtained in tort for the same injury that was a predicate for the payment of compensation benefits'” … . The Court reasoned that “[i]t would be unreasonable to read the statute as mandating a different result merely because the recovery came out of the pockets of a coemployee [or the employer] and not from the resources of a stranger” … . Ronkese v Tilcon N.Y., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04908, 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