You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Attorney Discharged without Cause Entitled to Fee as an Account Stated

The Third Department determined an attorney had been discharged without cause and was entitled to a charging lien and a retaining lien.  The client had signed a retainer agreement and had not expressed any objection to the detailed itemized bill submitted by the attorney.  The amount of the bill was therefore deemed an account stated.  In explaining the options available to an attorney who has been discharged without cause, the court wrote:

…[A]n attorney who has been discharged without cause may pursue the following cumulative remedies: (1) a charging lien, (2) a retaining lien, and/or (3) a plenary action in quantum meruit … . A charging lien is a statutory remedy — codified in Judiciary Law § 475 — that grants the attorney “a security interest in the favorable result of [the] litigation” … . A retaining lien, on the other hand, permits the discharged attorney to retain the contents of the client’s file until such time as the attorney has been paid or “the client has otherwise posted adequate security ensuring [the] payment [there]of” … . With respect to either lien, a hearing may be required to determine the amount of compensation due and owing to the discharged attorney. Here, however, we have no quarrel with Supreme Court’s finding that the firm was entitled to an award of $10,884.14 based upon an account stated. Roe v Roe, 2014 NY Slip 03317, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

, , ,

Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available for Purchase by New York City to Maintain the City’s Drinking-Water Watershed Was Not a Regulatory Taking

The Third Department determined the village had acted appropriately when it opted to exclude portions of land within the village from New York City’s watershed acquisition program.  Petitioner was attempting to sell an easement for her land to the City.  When the village opted to exclude petitioner’s land from the City’s acquisition program, the petitioner brought an action claiming the village had exceeded its authority by improperly restricting the ownership and transferability of her property. Petitioner further argued that the village’s action constituted a de facto regulatory taking of her property for which she was entitled to compensation:

Through voluntary agreement and accepting DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] conditions, the City consented not to be a potential purchaser of some upstate property if the local municipalities opted to exclude the property from land acquisition by the City. This was part of a delicate balance designed to protect the watershed and save the City significant money while safeguarding the economic vitality of upstate communities … . It was not an improper attempt by a local municipality to regulate who owns or occupies property … , but, in essence, the withdrawal of one potential purchaser who received a significant benefit. * * *

Where, as here, “the contested [resolution] falls short of eliminating all economically viable uses of the encumbered property, the Court looks to several factors to determine whether a taking occurred, including ‘the [resolution’s] economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the [resolution] interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action'” … . The resolution’s result was that one potential purchaser — who had not made any offer during the years when an easement on petitioner’s farm could have been purchased — no longer remained a potential purchaser. Petitioner has since found another willing purchaser. The resolution did not hinder the use that was being made of the property as a farming operation. The purpose of the resolution was to protect the Town’s potential for growth and economic sustainability, which was one of the many goals of the various parties involved … and consistent with an overriding purpose of maintaining a safe, ample and relatively inexpensive drinking water supply for the City. Petitioner “did not meet [her] heavy burden of showing that the [resolution] resulted in a regulatory taking”… .  Matter of Nelson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03319, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

, ,

Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff had adequately pled a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. The plaintiff alleged that defendant subverted a bidding process for the installation of artificial turf at state and local schools. Usually competitive bidding cases are brought in an Article 78 proceeding against the relevant public entity. This case fit an exception to that rule because it was brought against a private party working with the public entities. There was also some question whether the proceeding was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or a motion for summary judgment.  Because documentary evidence was submitted, the court’s role was to determine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether plaintiff has stated one:

…[S]ince the motion (made shortly after serving the answer and before disclosure) argued an absence of any legal viability of the alleged causes of action, Supreme Court did not err in treating the motion as a narrowly framed post-answer CPLR 3211 (a) (7) ground asserted in a summary judgment motion … . When dismissal is sought for failure to state a cause of action and, as here, plaintiff submits affidavits, “a court may freely consider [those] affidavits . . . and ‘the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one'” … .

Turning to the merits of the motion, “the laws requiring competitive bidding were designed to benefit taxpayers rather than corporate bidders and, thus, should be construed and administered with sole reference to the public interest” … . Therefore, the remedy for an alleged violation of the competitive bidding statutes typically involves a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the bidding process … . However, a narrow exception to the limited remedy may exist where a plaintiff does not seek relief from the public entity, but brings an action against someone working on behalf of the public entity in the competitive bidding process who allegedly engaged in egregious conduct unknown to the public entity aimed at intentionally subverting a fair process … . Allegations of restricting competition to artificial turf manufactured by A-Turf could be part of a cognizable claim under the narrow exception … . Chenango Contr., Inc. v Hughes Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03903, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff from Taking a Position Contrary to the Position Plaintiff Took In Two Prior Successful Actions

The Third Department determined the position taken by plaintiff in prior successful actions, i.e., that defendant was the owner of certain lots, precluded plaintiff, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, from taking the position defendant was not the owner of those lots in the instant proceeding:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, “if a party assumes a position in one legal proceeding and prevails in maintaining that position, that party will not be permitted to assume a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party’s interests have changed” … . “The doctrine rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise” …. . Green Harbour Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Ermiger, 2015 NY Slip Op 03899, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

, ,

Revocation of Empire-Zone-Business Certifications Upheld in 9 of 11 Instances

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, considered the Empire Zone Designation Board’s revocation of petitioners’ certifications as empire zone businesses. The Department of Economic Development (DED) was directed, in 2009, to conduct a review of all certified businesses to determine whether decertification was warranted on one of two grounds: “First, DED could decertify a business enterprise if it was a “shirt-changer,” that is, if the enterprise was certified prior to August 1, 2002, and it “caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with another business enterprise with similar ownership . . . to similar employment with [the enterprise] or if the enterprise acquired, purchased, leased, or had transferred to it real property previously owned by an entity with similar ownership, regardless of form of incorporation or ownership” (General Municipal § 959 [a] [v] [5]; see 5 NYCRR 11.9…). Second, DED could decertify a business enterprise if it failed to meet the 1:1 benefit-cost test … . The latter test required decertification where it was determined that the enterprise “has submitted at least three years of business annual reports [and it] has failed to provide economic returns to the [s]tate in the form of total remuneration to its employees (i.e., wages and benefits) and investments in its facility that add to a greater value than the tax benefits the business enterprise used and had refunded to it” … . Applying the standard criteria for review of administrative determinations, the Third Department upheld all but two of the 11 decertifications, but also determined retroactive decertifications were improper. Matter of Lyell Mt. Read Bus. Ctr. LLC v Empire Zone Designation Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 03906, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Late Notice of the Accident by the Insured (in Violation of the “Prompt Notice Condition), Coupled with the Injured Plaintiff’s Failure to Make Reasonable Efforts to Identify and Notify the Insurer, Relieved the Insurer of Any Obligation to Defend or Indemnify the Insured

Plaintiff was injured while skiing at a ski resort (Nevele’s). The Third Department determined Nevele failed to give timely notice of the accident/injury to its insurer, Lexington.   Nevele did not inform Lexington for ten months. The policy included a “prompt notice condition.” The court noted that, because the injured party can also notify the insurer of an accident, late notice will be excused if the injured party is unable to identify the insurer after making reasonable efforts.  Here the plaintiffs sent a letter to Nevele asking Nevele to notify its insurer, but did nothing further to learn the identity of or notify the insurer.  Plaintiffs’ efforts were not sufficient to excuse the late notice:

Because an injured party is allowed by law to provide notice to an insurance company (see Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [3]), he or she is also generally held to any prompt notice condition precedent of a policy … . However, such an injured party can overcome an insurance company’s failure to receive timely notice — which would otherwise vitiate coverage — by a demonstration that he or she did not know the insurer’s identity despite his or her reasonably diligent efforts to obtain such information … .

As proof of their reasonably diligent efforts, plaintiffs submitted two letters that they had sent to Nevele with an attached questionnaire. The letters provided notice of the contemplated personal injury action, requested that Nevele complete the questionnaire and requested that Nevele either kindly refer the letter to Nevele’s insurance company or inform plaintiffs if Nevele was not insured. The attached questionnaire requested insurance carrier information. However, despite the fact that [plaintiff’s] accident did not involve any automobile, that questionnaire only specifically requested insurance information regarding Nevele’s automobile insurer. Nevele responded to the second correspondence, but it did not respond to the question relating to insurance coverage. The record is devoid of evidence that plaintiffs took any further efforts to ascertain Lexington’s identity.

* * * Given the combination of plaintiffs’ initial failure to specifically ask for the relevant insurance information, their failure to ask for such information after Nevele’s communication and their failure to promptly follow up in any other manner, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their reasonable efforts to ascertain Lexington’s identity … . Kleinberg v Nevele Hotel, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03891, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Nonparent’s Petition for Custody of a Child, and Awarded Custody to the Father and Mother, in the Absence of an Evidentiary Hearing

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether non-parent petitioner could show extraordinary circumstances warranting the award of custody of a child petitioner cared for for years.  Family Court had awarded custody to the father and mother without a hearing:

Under settled law, “a parent has a claim of custody of his or her child, superior to that of all others, in the absence of surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, disruption of custody over an extended period of time or other extraordinary circumstances” … , and the nonparent bears the “heavy burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances to overcome the [parent’s] superior right to custody” … . “The pertinent factors to be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist include the length of time the child has lived with the nonparent, the quality of that relationship and the length of time the . . . parent allowed such custody to continue without trying to assume the primary parental role” …, as well as “the child’s psychological bonding and attachments, the prior disruption of the parent[‘s] custody, separation from siblings and potential harm to the child” and other relevant factors … . A “consent order, standing alone, does not constitute a judicial finding [or an admission] of . . . extraordinary circumstances” … . However, we have stressed that, “with few exceptions, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist” … . Matter of Liz WW. v Shakeria XX., 2015 NY Slip Op 03888, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

,

There Is No Blanket Prohibition Against Relying on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in a Medical Malpractice Case

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the defendant in a medical malpractice case, the Third Department noted that plaintiff is not precluded from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a medical malpractice action.  Here it is was alleged the improper insertion of an IV damaged a nerve: “While the proof adduced at trial ultimately may be insufficient to establish the required elements of res ipsa loquitur …, thereby rendering the submission of such a charge to the jury unwarranted …, there is no blanket prohibition upon invoking this doctrine in the context of a medical malpractice action … .  Weeks v St. Peter’s Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03909, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Where One Resident Consents to a Search and Another Resident Does Not Consent, the Search Can Not Be Executed—However, the Refusal to Consent Is Only Operative As Long As the Objecting Resident Is Physically Present

The Third Department explained that where one resident consents to a search of the premises, but another resident does not consent, the search can not be conducted.  However, a resident’s refusal to consent is operative for only as long as the resident is present at the premises.  Here the objecting resident left the premises and the police properly executed the search with the consent of the remaining resident:

Even in the absence of a warrant, police may lawfully search a residence where an inhabitant with apparent authority to consent to the search freely and voluntarily does so … . However, where one resident consents to a search and another refuses, “[the] warrantless search of [the] shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him [or her] on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident” … . Notably, however, the objecting resident’s refusal operates to counteract the other resident’s consent only so long as the objecting resident is physically present on the premises … . People v Grillo, 2015 NY Slip Op 03880, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Nondomiciliary’s Presence In New York State for Part of a Day Constitutes Presence for a “Day” for Income Tax Purposes

The Third Department determined presence in New York State for part of a day constitutes presence for a “day” when calculating the number of days a nondomiciliary resides in New York State for income tax purposes:

The Administrative Law Judge determined that, as per 20 NYCRR 105.20 (c), each of the 26 partial days constituted a day in New York under the statute, bringing Zanetti's total days in New York over 183 and, thus, resulting in petitioners being residents of this state for income tax purposes (see Tax Law § 605 [b] [1] [B]). …

The residency classification can have significant consequences since New York residents pay income tax on their worldwide income whereas nonresidents are taxed only on their New York source income (see Tax Law §§ 612, 631…). A nondomiciliary may be considered a New York resident for income tax purposes if he or she maintains a permanent place of abode in this state and spends in excess of 183 days of the year here (see Tax Law § 605 [b] [1] [B]…). The permanent place of abode element is not at issue here. With regard to days in New York, the pertinent regulation of respondent Commissioner of Taxation and Finance provides that, with certain exceptions not relevant in this proceeding, “presence within New York State for any part of a calendar day constitutes a day spent within New York State” (20 NYCRR 105.20 [c]). Matter of Zanetti v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2015 NY Slip Op 03894, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

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