You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

The Breach of Contract Cause of Action Which Was Based Upon Clauses Which Merely Stated the Common Law Standard of Care for Professionals Was Duplicative of the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action and Should Have Been Dismissed/Proper Measure of Damages for Negligent/Defective Building Design Is the Cost of Remediation

Plaintiff hospital alleged that the seismic retrofit of one of the hospital buildings would not operate as intended and sued the architectural firm which designed the retrofit under breach of contract and professional malpractice theories.  Plaintiff prevailed on both causes of action in a non-jury trial. The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed the breach of contract cause of action because it was duplicative of the professional malpractice cause of action. The only relevant clauses in the contract held the architectural firm to the common law standard for professionals.  Breach of those clauses, therefore, duplicated the professional malpractice cause of action. The Third Department affirmed the professional malpractice verdict and the award of damages, 1.7 million, which reflected the cost of remediation:

The contract does contain two clauses regarding defendant’s performance. They provide that defendant’s “services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the [w]ork,” and “shall be provided . . . in a manner consistent with the standards of care and skill exhibited in its profession for projects of this nature, type and degree of difficulty.” These provisions simply incorporate into the contract the common-law standard of care for a professional. “Making such ordinary obligations express terms of an agreement does not remove the issue [of a violation thereof] from the realm of negligence . . ., nor can it convert a malpractice action into a breach of contract action” … . Inasmuch as a breach of contract cause of action based on the violation of these particular contract provisions would be duplicative of a professional malpractice cause of action, Supreme Court should have dismissed plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action. * * *

We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s proposed amount of damages constitutes economic waste. The proper measure of damages due to the defective design of a building is the cost to remedy the defect, unless such amount is “grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be attained” by fixing the building … . The defects here were not trivial, but were substantial as to the seismic function of the building, such that plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount necessary to remediate the defects … . Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v Cannon Design, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03016, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Determination Annulled and Expunged—Hearing Officer Did Not Take Any Steps to Confirm the Reliability of the Confidential Information Upon Which the Determination Was Based

The Third Department annulled and expunged the determination that petitioner was properly placed in involuntary protective custody (IPC), finding that the hearing officer did not conduct the necessary independent investigation into the reliability of the confidential information which provided the basis for the IPC.  The hearing officer did not take any steps to learn the details of the investigation or to confirm that the source of relevant information was reliable:

…[W]e agree with petitioner that the Hearing Officer did not conduct the necessary independent assessment of the reliability of the confidential information that provided the basis for the IPC recommendation. Although the Hearing Officer took testimony from the captain who obtained the confidential information and issued the IPC recommendation, the Hearing Officer did not conduct an in camera interview of the captain to ascertain further details of his investigation, nor did he review any notes or letters that the captain may have received that threatened petitioner’s life … . Notably, the captain acknowledged that the confidential source who initially disclosed the threat would not identify the inmate who made it. Indeed, the only confirmation of this source’s reliability was the captain’s conclusory statement that he believed this individual was reliable based upon past dealings. Under the circumstances presented, we find that this was insufficient and that substantial evidence does not support the determination placing petitioner in IPC … . Matter of Melendez v Commissioner of The Dept. of Corrections & Community Supervision, 2015 NY Slip Op 03011, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Law of the Case Doctrine Should Not Have Been Invoked—Criteria Explained

In a breach of contract action, Supreme Court ruled on a summary judgment motion, finding it premature.  When a second summary judgment motion was made before a different judge, the new judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability for breach of contract and noted that the first order required the ruling because it was the “law of the case.” Although the Third Department ultimately upheld the breach of contract finding, the appellate court explained that the “law of the case” doctrine did not apply because the first order merely found there were issues of fact concerning the amount owed plaintiff and did not determine there was a breach of contract. The court explained that the doctrine of “law of the case” only applies to a ruling upon a “question of law that is essential to the determination of the matter”… :

…[W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court was required to rule that defendants were liable for breaching the Agreement by the doctrine of the law of the case, which bars courts from reconsidering “pre-judgment rulings made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction” in the same case … . The doctrine applies only when the prior ruling directly passed upon a question of law that is essential to the determination of the matter …. . Here, the only determination made in the 2012 order was that material issues of fact existed as to the amount owed. Although additional remarks were made in that order, these were merely dicta, and did not constitute a legal determination as to whether defendants breached the Agreement by deducting expenses — an issue that was not directly addressed by the 2012 order … . Karol v Polsinello, 2015 NY Slip Op 03024, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in a medical malpractice case after the jury had found “no cause for action.”  A rule in the Third Judicial District allowed the clerk to randomly select the jurors and alternates.  The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the first six jurors chosen by the parties were not empanelled by the clerk, as required by CPLR 4105.  Under the CPLR jurors 1 through 6 should have constituted the jury and jurors 7 and 8 should have been designated the alternate jurors. The clerk selected jurors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.  The Third Department perceived no abuse of discretion in setting aside the verdict:

After having determined that its application of the Third Judicial District rule contravened plaintiff’s substantial right to empanel the first six jurors that had been selected by the parties, pursuant to the “mandatory procedure” set forth in CPLR 4105, Supreme Court exercised its discretion and granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial in the interest of justice. In the absence of evidence that the court abused such discretion, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s determination in that regard … . Piacente v Bernstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03009, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

, ,

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

 

Bank May Still Be Lawful Holder of a Note and Mortgage, and Therefore Have Standing to Bring a Foreclosure Action, After the Loan Has Been Sold

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant in a foreclosure action.  Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, did not have standing to bring the foreclosure action because the loan had been sold to Fannie Mae at the time the action was started.  The Third Department explained that if Wells Fargo was the lawful holder of the note and mortgage when the action was brought, even though the beneficial interests in the note had been sold, it would have standing. “Holder status is established where the plaintiff possesses a note that, on its face or by allonge, contains an indorsement in blank or bears a special indorsement payable to the order of the plaintiff … .” Here a question of fact whether plaintiff physically possessed the note at the time the action was commenced precluded summary judgment:

Holder status is established where the plaintiff possesses a note that, on its face or by allonge, contains an indorsement in blank or bears a special indorsement payable to the order of the plaintiff (see UCC 1-201…). Notably, “[t]he holder of an instrument whether or not he [or she] is the owner may transfer or negotiate it[, and] discharge it or enforce payment in his [or her] own name” (UCC 3-301 … ).. Here, the note was originated by plaintiff and a copy submitted on the motion, alleged to be in plaintiff’s possession at the time it commenced this action, is endorsed in blank. Thus, notwithstanding the sale of the beneficial interests of the note to Freddie Mac, plaintiff has the right to enforce the note as its lawful holder so long as it can prove that it physically possessed the note at the time the action was commenced. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ostiguy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03015, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

, ,

Defense Counsel Took a Position Adverse to the Defendant’s—Sentence Vacated

The Third Department determined the defendant’s sentence must be vacated because defense counsel took a position adverse to the defendant re: the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea:

“It is well settled that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea”… . While defense counsel need not support a pro se motion to withdraw a plea, counsel may not become a witness against his or her client …, make remarks that “affirmatively undermine” a defendant’s arguments …, or otherwise “take a position that is adverse to the defendant” … . Here, when asked to respond to defendant’s pro se motion, counsel advised that, in his opinion, “[County] Court thoroughly explained everything to him . . ., [defendant had] no questions concerning the plea” and that there was no way that he could see that defendant “pleaded without knowing what he was pleading to.” In our view, because counsel’s opinion was adverse to defendant, a conflict of interest arose and County Court should have assigned a new attorney to represent defendant … . People v Prater,2015 NY Slip Op 02806, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Mother Was Not Afforded a Full Hearing in a Custody-Modification Proceeding

The Third Department determined Family Court erred by not affording mother the opportunity to fully cross-examine father or present her own proof in a custody-modification proceeding:

It is well settled “that modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” … . Family Court plainly deprived the mother of such a hearing by preventing her from fully cross-examining the father or submitting her own proof before imposing a custody arrangement to which she had not consented … . Matter of Richardson v Massey, 2015 NY Slip Op 02817, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

A Stipulation Cannot Bind an Insurer to Nonexistent Coverage

In finding that a hearing was required to determine if respondent was entitled to supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage, the Third Department noted that a stipulation, which implied the existence of such coverage, could not bind the insurer:

Supreme Court erred in concluding that the parties’ stipulation waived the issue of respondent’s entitlement to SUM coverage. Although the stipulation stated that, “[u]pon the completion of [certain] discovery set forth [in the stipulation, petitioner] agrees to proceed to arbitration,” a stipulation cannot create coverage of an individual, nor the obligation to arbitrate the issue of coverage, where the individual does not meet the relevant contractual prerequisites for coverage … . Stated differently, the stipulation cannot independently bind petitioner to supply coverage where no such coverage exists under the policy. Matter of Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. (Fisher), 2015 NY Slip Op 02837, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

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