You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

,

Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department vacated defendant's plea to a probation violation because no mention of a period of post-release supervision was made until moments before sentencing.  The court determined there was no need to preserve the error by objection because the defendant had so little time between notification of the post-release supervision and sentencing:

…[W]hether preservation is necessary hinges upon whether the defendant “had ample opportunity to object after the initial [reference to postrelease supervision] was made and before sentence was formally imposed” … . Thus, where “the court first mention[s] postrelease supervision only moments before imposing the sentence,” thereby depriving the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to weigh his or her options at that stage of the proceeding, preservation is not required … .

Although we are mindful that the matter before us concerns a plea of guilty to a violation of probation — as opposed to a plea of guilty to a crime — the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals …is equally applicable here. As noted previously, County Court made no mention of postrelease supervision during the course of defendant's plea colloquy …, nor does the record indicate that defendant otherwise was made aware — prior to entering her plea to the probation violation — that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence … . Rather, the need to impose a period of postrelease supervision was first raised at sentencing — quite literally moments before defendant's sentence actually was imposed … . Under these circumstances, preservation was not required, and County Court's failure to apprise defendant that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence mandates reversal. People v Bolivar, 2014 NY Slip Op 02980, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

241 (6) Cause of Action Improperly Dismissed—Plaintiff Tripped on Piece of Metal Protruding from Stair

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) claim against the general contractor (Glenman).  Plaintiff tripped and fell down a stairwell when his shoe was punctured by a piece of metal protruding from a stair:

Supreme Court improvidently dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Glenman. Notably, “Labor Law § 241 (6), by its very terms, imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . “To establish a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), [a] plaintiff must allege that [the] defendant[] violated a rule or regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor that sets forth a specific standard of conduct” … . “[O]nce it has been alleged that a concrete specification of [such a rule or regulation] has been violated, it is for the jury to determine whether the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused plaintiff’s injury” … .

Here, plaintiff relies upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1), which provides:”(e) Tripping and other hazards.(1) Passageways. All passageways shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from any other obstructions or conditions which could cause tripping. Sharp projections which could cut or puncture any person shall be removed or covered.” This regulation appropriately “mandat[es] compliance with concrete specifications” as required to state a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) … .  Marshall v Glenman Indus & Commercial Contr Corp, 20-14 NY Slip Op 02987, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

Substantive Issue Raised by Petitioner Had Not Been Addressed in a Prior Proceeding Which Had Been Dismissed—Current Proceeding Therefore Not Barred by Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

The Third Department determined a former teacher’s challenge to the recall of another former teacher was not barred by collateral estoppel.  The challenge was based upon the claim that the petitioner had greater seniority than the recalled teacher.  A prior challenge by petitioner to the recall of a different teacher had been dismissed, but the seniority issue had not been addressed in that prior proceeding:

In order for collateral estoppel to apply, there must be an identity of a decisive issue between the present and prior proceedings which was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and the party who will be estopped must have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding … . “Whether to apply collateral estoppel in a particular case depends on general notions of fairness involving a practical inquiry into the realities of the litigation” … . Here, while petitioner raises an identical issue in this proceeding, namely, whether she is entitled to more seniority credit than the Board gave her, that issue has never been decided. Rather, the earlier proceeding was dismissed as time-barred. Because the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to more seniority has not been decided, it is not barred by collateral estoppel … . Matter of Bubel v Board of Educ of the Saugerties Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 02999, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

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

 

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