You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudications Can Not Be Considered in the Criminal History Categories of a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI)—However the Adjudications Can Be Considered When Deciding Whether to Depart from the Recommended Risk Level

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, indicated its prior rulings should not be followed and determined that juvenile delinquency adjudications may not be considered under risk factors 8 and 9 (criminal history) for the purpose of assessing points in the risk assessment instrument (RAI). However the adjudications may be considered in determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level:

Relying on People v Campbell (98 AD3d 5 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 853 [2012]), defendant contended that Family Ct Act § 381.2 (1) precluded the use of the juvenile delinquency adjudication and, without the 30 points for criminal history, defendant would be presumptively classified as a risk level I sex offender. County Court, citing our previous decisions in People v Pride (37 AD3d 957 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]) and People v Dort (18 AD3d 23 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]), denied defendant’s challenge to the 30-point assessment and classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender. Defendant appeals.

We reverse. We agree with the holding of People v Campbell (supra) that the Board “exceeded its authority by adopting that portion of the [Sex Offender Registration Act] Guidelines which includes juvenile delinquency adjudications in its definition of crimes for the purpose of determining a sex offender’s criminal history” (id. at 12; see Family Ct Act § 380.1 [1]…). Contrary to the People’s argument, the fact that the points at issue in Campbell were assessed under risk factor 8 of the RAI does not require a different conclusion because both risk factor 8 and risk factor 9 fall within the criminal history category of the RAI. To the extent that our prior decisions suggest that juvenile delinquency adjudications may be considered crimes for purposes of the RAI, we note that the conflict between the Guidelines and the Family Ct Act was not raised in those cases and they should no longer be followed. Our ruling is limited, however, to precluding the use of juvenile delinquency adjudications to assess points for criminal history under the RAI, and we do not hold that the facts underlying a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered when determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level … . People v Shaffer, 2015 NY Slip Op 03586, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

Limousine Driver Properly Found to Be an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of SUK, a limousine service, and therefore was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.  The court noted that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) need not distinguish every arguably similar case it has previously decided:

“An employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with control over the latter being more important … .

Here, the record establishes that SUK assigned jobs to claimant and fielded complaints from its customers. Additionally, SUK imposed numerous restrictions upon claimant, including prohibiting him from working with its competitors, imposing detailed rules as to acceptable work dress and behavior and requiring him to drive a specific type of car. SUK also set the rate collected from the passengers and handled all voucher billing. … …[T]he Board need not “explicitly distinguish in its written decisions each and every arguably similar case that it previously has decided” and, hence, was not required to address the distinguishable cases relied upon by SUK … . Matter of June-Il Kim (Suk Inc.–Commissioner of Labor)\, 2015 NY Slip Op 03438, 3rd Dept 4-23-15

 

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over Employment Within Federal Enclaves (Here Navy Ships at Sea)

The Third Department determined that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) had jurisdiction over employment within so-called federal enclaves.  Here claimant was employed by a company which sold cars to Navy personnel stationed on ships at sea.  The company, Priority Assist, argued the Board did not have jurisdiction over the employment at issue.  The court relied on a US Supreme Court case which indicated the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States could be modified by statute, and the federal statute which state employment on federal propery was not exempt from state unemployment compensation law:

Priority Assist initially asserts that claimant and others similarly situated performed work in federal enclaves — i.e., lands purchased by the federal government, with state consent, “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” — and that the Board accordingly lacked jurisdiction to hold it liable for unemployment insurance contributions (US Const, art I, § 8, cl 17). Even assuming that United States Navy vessels that have never been part of a state constitute federal enclaves, “exclusive jurisdiction over [such an] area . . . remains with the United States, except as modified by statute” (Howard v Commissioners of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville, 344 US 624, 627 [1953] [emphasis added]). Inasmuch as federal law provides that “[n]o person shall be relieved from compliance with a [s]tate unemployment compensation law on the ground that services were performed on land or premises owned, held, or possessed by the United States,” the Board retained jurisdiction here (26 USC § 3305 [d]). Matter of Pickton (Priority Assist Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03437, 3rd Dept 4-23-15

 

Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract

The Third Department determined the employer, Partsfleet, exercised sufficient control over the claimant, a delivery driver, to support the finding that the driver was an employee, even though the employer had a contract with another company, SCI, which issued claimant’s paycheck. SCI had no involvement with the duties performed by the claimant. “Claimant was retained as a delivery driver following a short interview with a Partsfleet representative and a check of his motor vehicle record. Partsfleet trained him on the operation of a scanner used to schedule and track customer deliveries, and briefed him on the requirements of the customers. The delivery schedule was set by Partsfleet based upon customer requests, and it monitored deliveries via the scanner. Claimant was paid based on the particular delivery route that he had completed at a rate that Partsfleet set with its customer, and claimant was paid if he completed the route regardless of whether the customer paid Partsfleet. Claimant worked out of a warehouse that belonged to one of Partfleet’s customers and that is where he left his completed route sheets, which were then collected by a Partsfleet representative. Any problems with deliveries were generally handled by a Partsfleet representative. Although claimant could work for other companies and find replacements if he could not work a particular route, the replacements had to be approved by Partsfleet. The foregoing establishes that Partsfleet maintained control over important aspects of claimant’s work as was necessary to insure that its customers’ needs were satisfied…” Matter of Watson (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03224, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

,

“Head Waiter” with Substantial Managerial Duties and “Wine Steward” Whose Duties Did Not Include Serving Customers Were Not Entitled to Share in the Servers’ and Bus Boys’ Tip Pool

The Third Department affirmed the NYS Industrial Board of Appeals’ determination that two senior restaurant employees were not entitled to share in the servers’ and bus boys’ tip pool based upon the nature of their duties—one, the “head waiter,” had substantial managerial duties, and the other, the “wine steward,” had computer-programming duties, assisted customers with the wine list, and had little to do with serving customers.  Labor Law 196-d, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals, looks at the actual duties of employees, as opposed to their titles.  Those who exercise substantial managerial responsibilities, and those who cannot be characterized as “food service workers,” cannot participate in the tip pool:

The governing statute, Labor Law § 196-d, provides that “[n]o employer or his [or her] agent . . . shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee. . . . Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting . . . the sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee.” Recently, the Court of Appeals clarified that eligibility to participate in a tip pool “‘shall be based upon duties and not titles'” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d 460, 471 [2013], quoting 12 NYCRR 146-2.14 [e]), and the Court held that “employer-mandated tip splitting should be limited to employees who, like waiters and busboys, are ordinarily engaged in personal customer service, a rule that comports with the ‘expectation[s] of the reasonable customer'” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d at 471-472, quoting Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70, 79 [2008]; see 12 NYCRR 146-2.16 [b]; 146-3.4 [a]). Consistent with longstanding DOL policy, the Court further observed that “employees who regularly provide direct service to patrons remain tip-pool eligible even if they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d at 472). The Court concluded, however, “that there comes a point at which the degree of managerial responsibility becomes so substantial that the individual can no longer fairly be characterized as an employee similar to general wait staff within the meaning of Labor Law § 196-d” (id. at 473). The Court determined that “the line should be drawn at meaningful or significant authority or control over subordinates” (id.). The Court explained that “[m]eaningful authority might include the ability to discipline subordinates, assist in performance evaluations or participate in the process of hiring or terminating employees, as well as having input in the creation of employee work schedules, thereby directly influencing the number and timing of hours worked by staff as well as their compensation” (id.). Matter of Marzovilla v New York State Indus. Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03219, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

,

Premises Clause Prevails Over Habendum Clause in a Deed/Failure to Expressly Label Parties and Include the Parties’ Addresses Does Not Invalidate a Deed

The Third Department determined that where there is a conflict between the premises clause and the habendum clause in a deed, the premises clause prevails.  Here the premises clause clearly indicated the creation of a life estate with the remainder interest going to decedent’s only children.  The habendum clause indicated the decedent conveyed the property to “[defendant] and assigns forever.”  The court also noted that the failure to label the parties and include the parties’ addresses in a deed does not invalidate the deed, although it may preclude recording of the deed:

…[T]he rules of construction applicable to deeds provide that where there is a conflict between the provisions set forth in the premises clause and those in the habendum clause relative to the extent of the conveyance, the premises clause will control, absent a clear indication of a contrary intent elsewhere in the deed … . Here, the premises clause provides that the remainder interest in the property is conveyed to plaintiffs, and nothing in the deed other than the habendum clause suggests that decedent had a contrary intent. …

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, Real Property Law § 258 did not require the deed to expressly label plaintiffs as parties or to include their addresses. The statute does not mandate the use of the deed formats that it sets forth, but instead provides that “this section does not prevent or invalidate the use of other forms” (Real Property Law § 258). Although the failure to include a party’s address may prevent a deed from being recorded, it does not operate to invalidate the underlying conveyance … . Basile v Rose, 2015 NY Slip Op 03213, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

,

Attesting Witnesses Did Not See Decedent’s Signature on the Will and One Attesting Witness Did Not Know the Document Was a Will—The Will Was Not Duly Executed and the Petition for Probate Was Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined the petition seeking probate of a will was properly dismissed because the attesting witnesses did not know whether the decedent had signed the will.  One attesting witness was approached by decedent in the hallway of the assisted living facility where the witness worked and saw only the page of the document which he signed.  Another attesting witness, also approached in the hallway by the decedent, was not aware she was signing a will and did not see decedent’s signature on the document. The court explained that an attestation clause, standing alone, will not demonstrate due execution of a will. “…[T]he testator must acknowledge his or her signature to the witnesses. The testator must also declare to each witness that the document is the testator’s will (see EPTL 3-2.1 [a]).” Here, two of the three attesting witnesses did not sign the will in conformity with the statutory requirements:

To be duly executed, a will must be subscribed by the testator in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, or the testator must acknowledge his or her signature to the witnesses. The testator must also declare to each witness that the document is the testator’s will (see EPTL 3-2.1 [a]). Here, the subject will contains an attestation clause. However, Surrogate’s Court must nonetheless examine the attendant circumstances to determine the validity of the will, and it is well established that the attestation clause standing alone will not suffice to meet the proponent’s burden of demonstrating due execution by a preponderance of the evidence if affirmative proof reveals that the required elements were lacking … . In this analysis, “the testimony of the attesting witnesses is entitled to great weight” … . Matter of Yen, 2015 NY Slip Op 03228, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

Although a “Fundamental” Error Requiring Reversal If Preserved, Failure to Administer the Oath of Truthfulness to Potential Jurors is Not a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Third Department determined that defendant was not entitled to reversal based on the trial judge’s failure to administer the oath of truthfulness to potential jurors (Criminal Procedure Law 270.15(1)(a))  because the error, although fundamental, was not preserved for appeal by objection. It was not a “mode of proceedings” error (which would not need to be preserved by objection to require reversal). Had the error been preserved, reversal would have been mandatory. People v Chancey, 2015 NY Slip Op 03197, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

, ,

Criteria for an Application for a Use Variance Explained—Not Met Here

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition to annul the zoning board of appeals’ grant of a use variance to the respondent.  Respondent operates a manufacturing facility in a residential zone.  The facility pre-dated the ordinance making the zone exclusively residential.  The Third Department, in a previous appeal, determined that an addition to the manufacturing facility constituted an unlawful expansion of a nonconforming use.  Thereafter the respondent procured a use variance from the zoning board of appeals.  In concluding the use variance must be annulled, the Third Department explained that the applicant for a use variance must demonstrate the property cannot “yield a reasonable return if used for any of the purposes permitted as it is currently zoned…”.  In this case, the respondent was required to show that using the property for manufacturing without using the disputed addition would not yield a reasonable return. And the respondent was required to demonstrate that converting the entire property, not just the disputed addition, to residential use would not yield a reasonable return.  The respondent indicated only that the addition would be used to store old equipment and only attempted to demonstrate that conversion of the disputed addition (not the entire property) to residential use would not yield a reasonable return. Neither showing was sufficient:

An applicant for a use variance bears the burden of demonstrating, among other things, that the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used for any of the purposes permitted as it is currently zoned (see Town Law § 267-b [2] [b]…). Where, as here, a use variance is sought to expand a nonconforming use, “the applicant must demonstrate that the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used as it then exists or for any other use allowed in the zone” … . Such an inability to yield a reasonable return must be established through the submission of “dollars and cents” proof with respect to each permitted use (… .

Since the operation of the industrial manufacturing facility, as it existed at the time the prohibitory zoning ordinance was enacted in 1983, was a nonconforming use that was permitted to continue because the property was devoted to such a use before the ordinance took effect, it was a use that was permitted in that zone. Further, the property is located in an R1 residential district and, thus, residential uses were also permitted in that zone. Therefore, respondents had the burden of proving that their property could not yield a reasonable return if used as a presently existing nonconforming use — i.e., as a manufacturing facility without use of the addition for manufacturing purposes — or if used for any residential use … . Respondents’ proof was insufficient to meet either of these showings.

With regard to whether the property could yield a reasonable rate of return if continued to be used for manufacturing purposes without utilizing the 800-square-foot addition, the evidence presented at the hearing established that the addition is used to house older equipment that has been replaced by more advanced, efficient equipment. * * *

Even if there were sufficient proof to demonstrate an inability to realize a reasonable return on the property if used as it presently exists for manufacturing purposes, no evidence was presented as to the financial implications of converting the entire property to residential use, [*3]which is a use permitted in that zone. While financial evidence was presented on the cost of converting the addition to a residential use, “[it] is . . . with respect to the whole tract that reasonableness of return is to be measured”… . The fact that respondents’ application for a use variance was limited to the addition is of no moment; the inquiry as to an inability to realize a reasonable return may not be segmented to examine less than all of an owner’s property rights subject to a regulatory regime … . Matter of Nemeth v Village of Hancock Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03008, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Employer Did Not Exercise Sufficient Control over Claimant’s Work—Finding that Claimant Was an Employee Was Not Supported

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was an employee of Stacy Blackman Consulting (SBC).  The court explained: “Claimant … executed an agreement that designated him an independent contractor. He further negotiated his own fee, was not reimbursed for expenses, and was not provided with any benefits. SBC did not train, supervise or otherwise direct claimant in the performance of his work, although it did require him to turn over whatever application materials he had helped prepare. SBC also did not perform any substantive review of claimant’s work, did not require him to attend any meetings or consult with it, and allowed him to decline assignments and take time off as he saw fit. Moreover, while the parties’ agreement required claimant to keep sample application materials provided by SBC confidential and imposed restrictions on his ability to work for competitors in the field, the president of SBC testified without contradiction that she had never enforced those provisions and had permitted claimant to work elsewhere. ”  Matter of Jhaveri (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03019, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Board’s ruling that claimant was an employee of Encore, an event staffing company which refers persons, called brand ambassadors,  to clients who want to promote a product at an event. The court wrote: “…[T]he pertinent inquiry is whether Encore exercised control “over the results produced or the means used to obtain those results, with control over the latter being the more important factor to consider” … Here, the evidence reveals that Encore retained little or no control over either the means or results of the work performed by the brand ambassadors. Significantly, Encore did not conduct interviews, auditions or background checks, did not review credentials or set the rate of pay, did not provide training or supervision at events, did not establish work schedules, did not supply equipment, clothing or props and did not evaluate performance. Notably, it was the clients who directed the brand ambassadors by providing them with instruction on how to promote the specific products or services.” Matter of Lee (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03022, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

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