You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Length of Probationary Term for New County Employees Is Arbitrable Under the Two-Prong Test

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined the grievance concerning the length of the probationary period for new employees was arbitrable. The union contended the county had imposed a longer period of probation on a new employee than the 26 weeks allowed by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The county civil service commission, prior to the execution of the CBA, had adopted a resolution describing the period of probation for new employees as ranging from 8 to 52 to weeks. The Third Department determined there was no statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition to arbitration of the grievance. And the broad arbitration clause in the CBA covered the grievance at issue:

The threshold determination of whether a dispute is arbitrable is well settled. Proceeding with a two-part test, we first ask whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute by inquiring if there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance. If no prohibition exists, we then ask whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement. If there is a prohibition, our inquiry ends and an arbitrator cannot act” … .

To be sure, “[w]hen a county civil service commission, possessing the requisite authority, promulgates a rule establishing the length of a probationary term of service, that rule has the effect of law”… , and the public employer and the union cannot negotiate a contrary provision in a CBA. Here, however, the CBA executed by the County and the Union long after the Commission modified the probationary term is not inconsistent with the new Commission rule, as the probationary term negotiated by the parties falls squarely within the range promulgated by the Commission. Therefore, we discern no statutory or public policy bar to arbitration of the grievance in the first instance … . Hence, we are satisfied that the parties may in fact arbitrate the underlying dispute. As to the second inquiry, i.e., whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate this particular dispute, we note that the parties’ CBA contains a broad arbitration clause, which encompasses “any claimed violation, misrepresentation or improper application” of the CBA. In light of such language, we similarly are persuaded that the Union’s grievance falls within the scope of disputes that the parties agreed to submit to arbitration … . Matter of County of Greene (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Greene County Unit 7000, Greene County Local 820), 2015 NY Slip Op 04709, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Defendant Would Not Admit to the Commission of Certain Elements of the Offense to Which He Pled Guilty—Vacation of Plea as Involuntary Was Required, Despite Lack of Preservation and a Waiver of Appeal

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated, despite a failure to preserve the error and a waiver of appeal. During the plea allocution, defendant denied elements of the offense to which he was pleading guilty (strangulation in the second degree). Defendant denied that the victim experienced a loss of consciousness or any injury, and denied he had the intent to impede the breathing of the victim.  The guilty plea, therefore, was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary (constituting an exception to the “preservation of error” requirement):

Although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal …, it is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion … . Upon reviewing the record, however, we are persuaded that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement has been triggered here, as defendant made numerous statements during the course of the plea colloquy that negated essential elements of the crime, thereby calling into question the voluntariness of his plea … . * * *

Simply put, defendant’s responses to the questions posed during the plea colloquy negated more than one element of the charged crime, thereby casting doubt upon his guilt. Inasmuch as further inquiry by County Court neither resolved that doubt nor otherwise established that the resulting plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary … , it should not have been accepted by the court and must now be vacated … . People v Mcmillan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04680, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Inadequate Waiver of the Right to Appeal Required Vacation of Guilty Plea, Despite Lack of Preservation of the Error

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and his guilty plea must therefore be vacated (in the interest of justice), despite the failure to preserve the error:

Defendant argues that his plea was invalid because County Court failed to advise him of the rights that he would be waiving by pleading guilty, including “the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to a jury trial and to be confronted by witnesses” … . This argument is unpreserved given defendant’s failure to advance it in his motion to withdraw his plea … . While it is somewhat unclear as to the precise characterization of this type of error … , it is undoubtedly one serious enough to warrant reversal in the interest of justice … . …

… [A] trial court is neither required “to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled [or] to elicit . . . detailed waivers before accepting [a] guilty plea” …, nor engage in “a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants” … . There must, however, “be ‘an affirmative showing on the record’ that the defendant waived his [or her] constitutional rights” … . County Court made no effort to explain the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty, making nothing more than a passing reference to them when asking if defendant had “any questions.” County Court further failed to establish that “defendant consulted with his attorney about the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea,” instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel regarding “the plea bargain” and “the case”… . People v Klinger, 2015 NY Slip Op 04682, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, ,

Note Which Was Extended and Consolidated with Other Debts Was Not Extinguished by the Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA)—the Agreement, Therefore, Did Not Commence the Running of the Statute of Limitations for an Action on the Note

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) did not extinguish a note which was extended and consolidated under the agreement. Therefore the statute of limitations for action on the note did not commence running when the agreement was entered:

We agree with plaintiff that the plain language of the CEMA does not support Supreme Court’s conclusion that the CEMA extinguished the 1992 note and thereby recommenced the running of the statute of limitations. “It is well established that a subsequent note does not discharge the original indebtedness secured unless there is an express agreement between the parties” … . Defendant points to no express agreement and cites no authority supporting its claim that the CEMA operated to extinguish the 1992 note. Rather, the record makes clear that defendant still owed approximately $169,000 on the 1992 note at the time that the CEMA was executed. That debt was consolidated with two other debts into a new note and the mortgage liens were “coordinated, consolidated, combined and extended” to form a single lien. “Where, as here, balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and CEMAs are executed to consolidate the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist” … . Bechard v Monty’s Bay Recreation, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04711, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Agency’s Failure to Follows Its Own Regulations Rendered Determination Arbitrary and Capricious

The Third Department determined that the NYS Education Department did not follow its own regulations in calculating the amounts due petitioner for special education services for preschool children with disabilities.  Failure to follow the regulations rendered the calculation “arbitrary and capricious:”

Petitioner contends that respondent failed to follow its own regulations and otherwise acted arbitrarily primarily by relying upon unaudited information from the municipalities, disregarding petitioner’s audited CFR [Consolidated Fiscal Report] and financial data, and refusing to consider petitioner’s explanation for the discrepancies between its audited information and the municipalities’ data. Our review of an administrative agency’s determination is limited to “ascertain[ing] whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious” …, and we have previously recognized that respondent has “broad discretion in setting the reconciliation rate” … . However, an agency determination arrived at in a manner inconsistent with its own regulations is not supported by a rational basis … . Although “an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference” … , “courts are not required to embrace a regulatory construction that conflicts with the plain meaning of the promulgated language” … . * * *

The intent of the regulations, consistent with common sense and good government, is to gather and use correct data; hence, the repeated directives that service providers submit information — CFRs and financial statements — that has been independently audited and certified by an appropriate professional (see 8 NYCRR 200.9 [e] [1] [i] [a] [1]; [ii] [a]). The regulations provide no authority for relying solely on unaudited information from municipalities. This does not lead to the conclusion that such information from a municipality has no role. It can be considered to require clarification or explanation from a service provider and, if adequately verified, even incorporated in the calculus. However, at a minimum, a service provider that has adhered to the regulations and provided a CFR and financial statement, both audited, should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain and/or reconcile its information with the unaudited information of a municipality. Consistent with its own regulations, respondent cannot simply reject audited information by reason of the existence of less reliable information without some articulable rational basis. Matter of Mid Is. Therapy Assoc., LLC v New York State Educ. Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04707, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

Untimely Initial Appearance Does Not Mandate Dismissal as Long as the Right to a Speedy Fact-Finding Hearing Is Not Violated

The Third Department determined the failure to conduct an initial appearance within ten days of the filing of the juvenile delinquency petition (charging the equivalent of assault and criminal possession of a weapon) did not require dismissal of the petition. The court attempted to conduct the initial appearance within ten days but respondent failed to appear and no timeliness objection was raised when the initial appearance was conducted five days later.  The Third Department explained that the ten-day requirement is flexible, but the requirement that a fact-finding hearing be conducted within 60 days of the initial appearance is mandatory:

Respondent first contends that dismissal of the June 2013 petition is required because Family Court failed to conduct a timely initial appearance. Because he was not detained, Family Ct Act § 320.2 (1) required that the initial appearance occur “as soon as practicable and, absent good cause shown, within [10] days after” the filing of the petition. The initial appearance, “like the arraignment of an adult charged with a crime, is the process by which the court obtains jurisdiction over the minor, determines if detention is warranted, and sets the dates for further proceedings” (… see Family Ct Act § 320.4). Dismissal is appropriate where a respondent is deprived of his or her right to a speedy fact-finding hearing, a hearing that must occur “not more than [60] days after the conclusion of the initial appearance” if he or she is not confined (Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]; see Family Ct Act §§ 310.2, 332.1 [8]). A “similar protected status” is not afforded to the initial appearance itself, although “dismissal without prejudice may be an appropriate remedy” if it is not held in a timely manner … . To put it succinctly, dismissal is not mandated in the wake of an untimely initial appearance so long as respondent’s right to a speedy fact-finding hearing is not violated … . Matter of Daniel B., 2015 NY Slip Op 04698, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Courts Do Not Defer to an Agency’s Construction of a Statute—Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination, Based Upon the Construction of Workers’ Compensation Law 25, Reversed

In the context of a “conciliation process” pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law 25, the Third Department explained the court’s role in reviewing the determination of an agency when statutory construction is the sole issue. Unlike the factual determinations of an agency, to which courts must defer, no such deference is afforded an agency’s construction of a statute. Reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Third Department held that the statute unambiguously entitled claimant to a penalty imposed upon the employer for failure to timely make compensation payments:

Where, as here, the issue is one of pure statutory construction, no deference need be accorded to the Board’s interpretation of the statutory framework … . As to our construction of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25, “the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent and, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Further, the provisions within that statute must be “construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, and courts must harmonize the related provisions in a way that renders them compatible” … .

Turning to the relevant statutory provisions, Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 has two mechanisms for penalizing employers or workers’ compensation carriers who fail to make timely payment of compensation following a decision. The first provides that, “[i]f the employer or its insurance carrier shall fail to make payments of compensation according to the terms of the award within [10] days . . ., there shall be imposed a penalty equal to [20%] of the unpaid compensation which shall be paid to the injured worker or his or her dependents” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [3] [f]). The second provides that, if payment is not made within 10 days of a proposed conciliation decision becoming final, “the chair [of the Board] shall impose . . . a fine of [$500] for failure to live up to the terms of the decision upon verification that payment has not been timely made” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [2-b] [h]; see 12 NYCRR 312.5 [i]).

The statutory scheme unambiguously entitles claimant to the penalty described in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). Matter of Liberius v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04706, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession

Reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their adverse-possession claim, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether plaintiffs’ use of the disputed land was with the defendants’ permission, which would defeat the “hostility” element of adverse possession.  The Third Department offered a detailed fact-based analysis which provides an excellent lesson on the law of adverse possession. The court noted, on the issue of exclusivity, the claim that defendants occasionally maintained the disputed property during the plaintiffs’ absence was not enough to raise a question of fact about the plaintiffs’ exclusive use of the property:

To establish their claim for adverse possession, plaintiffs are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their possession of the disputed property “[was] hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years” … . Additionally, where, as here, the adverse possession claim is not based upon a written instrument, the party asserting the claim “must establish that the land was ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure'” … .

As for [defendant’s] alleged maintenance of the disputed property during plaintiffs’ absences, “exclusivity is not defeated even if the true owner makes occasional forays onto the property . . .. [A]ll that is required is possession consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” (1-5 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property § 5.33 [2015]). In our view, plaintiffs’ exclusive, regular use and maintenance of the disputed property during their periods of occupation were consistent with the seasonal nature of their property. The occasional maintenance that defendants allegedly performed or directed during plaintiffs’ absences — which was performed without plaintiffs’ knowledge and did not interfere in any way with plaintiffs’ possession or use of the disputed property — was insufficient to meet defendants’ prima facie burden to establish that plaintiffs’ use of the property was not exclusive … . Bergmann v Spallane, 2015 NY Slip Op 04713, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, , ,

Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination (Where the Employee Elects to Appeal to the Commission Before Seeking Judicial Review) Does Not Apply When Constitutional Rights Are Implicated or Where the Agency Has Acted Illegally or In Excess of Its Jurisdiction

The Third Department determined, despite a statutory provision prohibiting judicial review when the employee elects to appeal to the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial review, the courts have the power to review the agency’s determination when the agency has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Here the petitioner asserted her employment was terminated based on charges brought after the statute of limitations on those charges had passed. The Third Department agreed.  Although there is an exception to the application of the one-year statute of limitations when the charges constitute crimes, here the allegations of misconduct did not include the requisite mens rea for the crime of official misconduct (intent to gain a benefit and knowledge the conduct was unauthorized).  Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied. With respect to the power to review the agency’s determination, the Third Department wrote:

Civil Service Law § 76 (3) provides that where, as here, an employee has elected to appeal to respondent before seeking judicial review, “[t]he decision of [respondent] shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” (see also Civil Service Law § 76 [1]). Such explicit statutory language ordinarily bars further appellate review … . However, statutory preclusion of all judicial review of the decisions rendered by an administrative agency in every circumstance would constitute a grant of unlimited and potentially arbitrary power too great for the law to countenance … . Thus, even when proscribed by statute, judicial review is mandated when constitutional rights are implicated by an administrative decision or “when the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction”… . Matter of De Guzman v State of New York Civ. Serv. Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 04712, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Does Not Confer a Private Right of Action Upon Local School Districts to Challenge IDEA-Related Rulings by the State Education Department (SED)

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not give local educational agencies (LEA’s) (here a local school district) a private right of action to challenge a ruling by the State Education Department (SED) .  Here the SED found that the LEA’s dispute resolution practices violated state laws and regulations promulgated in accordance with the IDEA and ordered corrective measures. The LEA then challenged the SED’s rulings in an Article 78 action. The Third Department noted that the IDEA does not expressly confer a right of private action on LEA’s in this context and therefore whether such a right exists depends upon congressional intent. Because the IDEA confers a private right of action upon a specialized class, i.e., “any party aggrieved” by IDEA-related administrative proceedings which involve due process afforded a particular child, it follows that Congress did not intend to confer such a right upon LEA’s:

… Congress created procedural safeguards to ensure that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education and, in doing so, expressly granted a private right of action to “any party aggrieved” by an SEA’s administrative findings or decision resolving a due process complaint challenging “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of [a particular] child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child” (20 USC § 1415 [b] [6] [A]; [f], [g], [i] [2] [A]; see also Education Law § 4404; 8 NYCRR 200.5 [i], [j], [k], [l])[FN2]. Since the IDEA includes an express right of action in favor of a specific class of persons, it is logical to assume that, had Congress intended to bestow upon LEAs a right of action to challenge an SEA’s regulatory and enforcement actions, it would have expressly done so … .

Further evidence of a lack of Congressional intent can be found in the hierarchal regulatory and enforcement structure created by the IDEA, which requires the federal Secretary of Education to monitor the states’ implementation of IDEA mandates and imposes upon the states corresponding regulatory and enforcement responsibilities over LEAs (see 20 USC § 1412 [a] [11]; § 1416 [a] [3]; 34 CFR 300.600, 300.603). The delegation of regulatory and enforcement power to the Secretary of Education and the states, but not to LEAs, suggests that Congress specifically intended to deny LEAs a right of action to challenge an SEA’s compliance with the IDEA … . Moreover, it would be inconsistent for Congress to implicitly create this right of action, as doing so would divest the Secretary of Education and the states of their regulatory and enforcement authority and would transfer that power to the Judiciary … . Matter of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 04703, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

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