You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

“Agreement to Agree” Insufficient to Sever a Joint Tenancy

The Third Department noted that a joint tenancy with right of survivorship can be severed by written agreement, but determined the email correspondence, which evinced the parties’ intent to sever the joint tenancy, did not accomplish the severance because material terms, including price, were not addressed: “Real Property Law § 240-c (3) (a) allows for the severance of a joint tenancy “pursuant to a written agreement of all joint tenants.” However, “a contract must be definite in its material terms in order to be enforceable” … . For this reason, an agreement to agree, where such terms are left to future negotiations, is unenforceable …”. Matter of Wyman (Riddle), 2015 NY Slip Op 03908, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

“Mystery Shopper” Not an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant, a mystery shopper, was not an employee entitled to unemployment benefits because the employer, Confero, exercised minimal control over claimant’s work:

Here, claimant testified that, when a new mystery shopping event became available, he was notified via email by a scheduling company and then was able to view the assignment on Confero’s website. Claimant had the liberty of choosing what assignments, if any, he wanted to perform and, after he accepted an assignment, Confero did not even require that claimant perform the assignment himself. Rather, claimant had the discretion to send a substitute in his place so long as he provided notification to the scheduling company to ensure that the substitute was not overexposed at a given location. Although each assignment came with certain tasks that claimant had to perform, the manner in which he performed those tasks was fully within his discretion. Significantly, Confero did not require that claimant perform any minimum number of assignments, request that he seek permission for time off or set forth a particular work schedule. According to Confero’s president, claimant was free to work as little or as much as he wanted. For each assignment that he completed, claimant was paid a nonnegotiable fixed fee that was set by Confero’s client. Further evidencing a lack of control, Confero did not provide claimant with any training, supply him with any equipment or require him to attend any meetings, and it fully permitted him to work for competing companies, which he did regularly. Matter of Chan (Confero Consulting Assoc., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03890, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

,

Jury’s Finding that the Defendant Was Negligent but that the Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—Motion to Set Aside the Verdict Should Have Been Granted—New Trial Ordered

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict.  Plaintiff was injured when her bicycle struck a recessed manhole cover.  Defendant construction company had placed barrels in the roadway to create a pedestrian walkway.  The placement of barrels served to direct users of the walkway toward the recessed manhole. The jury found the placement of the barrels negligent but further found that negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident.  The verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the only reason the placement of the barrels would be deemed negligent is that the barrels diverted traffic toward the recessed manhole:

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that [such] fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . Further, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, defendant, and afford deference to the jury’s credibility determinations … . A “plaintiff’s own conduct may be a superceding cause which severs the causal connection between [the] defendant’s negligence and the injury [when] a plaintiff’s negligence [is] more than mere contributory negligence, which would be relevant in apportioning culpable conduct” … .

* * * The only theory presented at trial as to why such placement was negligent, as indicated in the jury instructions, was that it diverted traffic toward a dangerous recessed manhole cover. Given that the uncontested evidence was that plaintiff was diverted in just such a manner, no fair interpretation of the evidence “would support the conclusion that [plaintiff’s] conduct was so extraordinary or unforeseeable as to make it unreasonable to hold defendant[] responsible for the resulting damages” … . Therefore, Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict. Durrans v Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03896, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

UInstructor at a Not-for-Profit Theater Company Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined a playwrighting instructor at  a not-for-profit theater company, Primary Stages Company, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

We note that, for purposes of our review, we consider instructors and teachers to be professionals … . Accordingly, in deciding if such individuals are employees, the pertinent inquiry is “whether the purported employer retains control of important aspects of the services performed” … .

Here, Primary Stages utilized an informal process in retaining claimant, as it was familiar with her through her affiliation with a writers’ group and simply inquired if she was interested in teaching writing classes. Claimant responded in the affirmative and entered into a written agreement with Primary Stages under which she was paid a flat fee of $1,900 per class. Primary Stages furnished the classroom and also provided a teaching assistant. Although claimant retained the discretion to set the course curriculum, claimant and Primary Stages worked together to establish the class schedule that Primary Stages then distributed to prospective students. Primary Stages was responsible for providing all school facilities and a teaching assistant, finding students to fill the classes and collecting their tuition. The school cancelled classes if there was low enrollment, in which case the instructor would not be paid. If claimant could not teach a class, she needed to notify Primary Stages and, if she or other instructors were unable to complete a course assignment, Primary Stages would find a replacement whose selection was often based upon the recommendation of the instructor. Furthermore, Primary Stages circulated an evaluation form to students for feedback on the instructor at the end of the course and, if the evaluation was unsatisfactory, it would not rehire that instructor. Matter of Wilner (Primary Stages Co. Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03902, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

, ,

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

 

Question of Fact Whether Defendants Assumed a Duty of Reasonable Care When Escorting Elderly Plaintiff to His Car at Night

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether defendants assumed a duty of reasonable care when escorting the elderly plaintiff to his car at night.  Plaintiff tripped and fell while being escorted by a hospital security guard after plaintiff had been treated at the hospital.  Plaintiff asked for the escort:

Plaintiffs did …raise a factual issue as to whether defendants assumed a duty of reasonable care regarding the escort provided. Under the assumed duty theory, “the question is whether defendant[s’] conduct placed plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than plaintiff would have been in had defendant[s] done nothing” … . While there was conflicting proof, on this cross motion by defendants for summary judgment we “must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and accord that party the benefit of every reasonable inference from the record proof” … . Plaintiff characterized the lighting conditions when he was ready to leave the emergency room as “pitch black,” prompting him to ask for assistance. The security guard who was summoned had previously escorted people from the emergency room to off-premises parking and thus was familiar with conditions in the area. Plaintiff kept a hand on his wife’s shoulder as they walked assisting his stability. Although the security guard had a flashlight, he did not turn it on and did not walk next to plaintiffs. Plaintiff recalled that, just before he fell, he stated to the security guard that he could barely see because of the darkness, but the guard made a gesture ostensibly indicating that it was safe to proceed and, as plaintiff did so, he immediately stepped into the crack or depression and fell. Accepting such proof and the reasonable inferences therefrom, a jury could conclude that plaintiff would have proceeded more cautiously had he not relied on an individual familiar with the area who apparently gestured for him to continue despite the poor visibility … . Giglio v Saratoga Care Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02994, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

,

Issuance of a “No Knock” Warrant to Take a DNA Sample Was Not Justified—Sample Should Have Been Suppressed

The Third Department suppressed DNA evidence taken from the defendant pursuant to a “no knock” warrant and reversed defendant’s conviction. No exigent circumstances justified the “no knock” warrant which allowed the police to enter defendant’s home without notice and take the DNA sample:

The search warrant application to obtain DNA from defendant included the unsubstantiated and inaccurate allegations that the “search warrant cannot be executed between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.,” “the property sought will be removed or destroyed if not seized forthwith,” and “[t]he property sought may be easily and quickly destroyed or disposed of.” There were no factual allegations reflecting exigent circumstances justifying the lack of any notice to defendant of the application to obtain a DNA sample from him. He could not destroy or dispose of his own DNA, and the People’s speculation in their brief that he might have fled was not alleged or supported by facts in the application.

The ensuing search warrant inconsistently stated both that it was to be executed between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and that it could be executed at any time day or night; and it further authorized police to enter the premises where defendant resided without giving notice of their authority or purpose. Under the authority of the warrant, police arrived unannounced at the place where defendant lived demanding his DNA. The total absence of notice to defendant of the search warrant application, which had obvious defects regarding the manner purportedly necessary to obtain defendant’s DNA, violated his constitutional rights and the DNA obtained in such search must be suppressed and the judgment reversed… . People v Walker, 2014 NY Slip Op 02975, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

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