You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LIMITED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO ONLY “SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES;” USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGH AIRBNB VIOLATES THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, determined that a restrictive covenant from a common grantor restricting the use of the property to only “single-family residential purposes” prohibited plaintiff from using the property for short-term rentals through Airbnb. Such use is not “residential:”

… [T]he restrictive covenant limits the permissible use to only “single[-]family residential purposes.” This phrase unambiguously directs that all properties within the subdivision must be used for only residential purposes, and, thus, any and all rentals must be to those who would utilize the property for residential purposes — i.e., as a residence. A residence is the location where an individual “actually lives” and is established by “[t]he act or fact of living in a given place for some time” (Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], residence). Although there is no express durational requirement, a stay in a short-term rental property does not meet this definition … . Lodgers in short-term rental properties do not live on the premises but are instead on a short trip and often maintain a residence elsewhere where they “actually live[ ]” (Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], residence). This is true even though lodgers may have access to the entirety of the property and may use it in the same manner as a resident, including by cooking meals and sleeping as plaintiff highlighted. West Mtn. Assets LLC v Dobkowski, 2024 NY Slip Op 02355, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here the restrictive covenant limited the use of the property to “residential” use. A “residence” is where someone actually lives, not where someone stays for a short time while on a trip. Therefore the restrictive covenant precluded short-term rentals of the property through Airbnb.

 

,

THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY PROPERLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN HERBICIDE IN LAKE GEORGE TO CONTROL AN INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) properly issued permits for the application of an herbicide (ProcellaCOR EC) in Lake George to control an invasive aquatic plant called Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM). Supreme Court had granted the Article 78 petition and vacated the permits. Applying black letter administrative law, the Third Department found no basis to overturn the APA’s ruling. The opinion is too fact-specific and detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [W]here an agency’s determination was rendered without a fact-finding hearing, a court’s review is limited to “whether [the] determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3] …). In performing such review, “[i]t is well settled that a court cannot substitute its view of the factual merits of a controversy for that of the administrative agency” … . And, when “the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency’s expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference” … . Indeed, “[i]f a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational” … .

Although an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it fails to conform to its own regulations, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference if that interpretation does not contradict the plain language of the regulations and is not irrational or unreasonable … . Matter of Lake George Assn. v NYS Adirondack Park Agency, 2024 NY Slip Op 02356, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Black letter administrative law for the review of an agency’s determination when there was no fact-finding hearing was applied here. The Adirondack Park Agency’s issuance of permits for the application of an herbicide in Lake George was upheld.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ADMITTED ROLLING THROUGH A BIKE-PATH STOP SIGN BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION, THERE REMAINED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-driver’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection bicycle-car collision case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff-bicyclist acknowledged he did not completely stop at the bike-path stop sign before entering the intersection, there were questions of fact whether defendant driver (Butler) failed to see what was to be seen:

… [P]laintiff’s admission that he came to a “rolling stop” at the stop sign, which amounts to a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 (a) and establishes some degree of fault on his part. Nevertheless, that fact is not dispositive as to whether he was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . To this point, Butler’s testimony suggests that no other vehicles were at the intersection prior to her turning left and that her visibility down the bike path was limited to approximately 20 feet, due in part to a building, trees and bushes obstructing her view. However, our review of the photographs of the intersection contained in the record casts doubt on that account, as a lengthy portion of the bike trail both preceding and after the stop sign located on said trail appears visible from Butler’s vantage point both at the light and after she commenced the left turn. Whether plaintiff should have been visible to Butler is further unresolved by the time frames relative to Butler commencing the turn and the time to impact as well as the varying accounts from plaintiff, Butler and the police report specific as to how far Butler had traveled into the intersection before the collision took place … . Ruberti v Butler, 2024 NY Slip Op 02358, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: In this intersection bicycle-car collision case, plaintiff-bicyclist’s failure to come to a complete stop at the bike-path stop sign did not establish he was the sole proximate cause of the accident.. There were questions of fact about whether defendant driver failed to see what was there to be seen.

 

CLAIMANT PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEAN UP AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK ON 9-11 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER ARTICLE 8-A (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that some of the World Trade Center clean-up activities of the claimant qualified for benefits pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A:

“Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A was enacted to remove statutory obstacles to timely claims filing and notice for latent conditions resulting from hazardous exposure for those who worked in rescue, recovery or cleanup operations following the [WTC] September 11th, 2001 attack” … . * * *

… [W]e find, in light of the liberal construction afforded to Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A, that claimant’s activities of assisting with clearing the area — which notably was located within the statutorily-defined WTC site — in order for the emergency vehicles to access Ground Zero had a tangible connection to the rescue efforts. As such, the Board’s determination that claimant did not participate in the rescue [*3]effort operations to qualify under Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Liotta v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 2024 NY Slip Op 02237, Third Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: Article 8-A of the Worders’ Compensation Law was enacted to cover rescue and other worker’s who responded to the World Trade Center attack on 9-11. Here claimant participated in clean-up activities to keep the area clear for emergency vehicles and was therefore entitled to benefits pursuant to article 8-A.

 

, ,

HERE THE FACILITY REVIEW OFFICER VIEWED THE VIDEO EVIDENCE AND EXPRESSED THE CONCLUSION PETITIONER HAD VIOLATED PRISON RULES BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING; THAT SAME OFFICER DECIDED PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL; THAT SCENARIO VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination petitioner had violated prison rules, determined the fact that the facility review officer reviewed petitioner’s misbehavior report and decided the administrative appeal violated due process:

Petitioner contends … he was denied due process because the facility review officer that reviewed his misbehavior report … also decided petitioner’s administrative appeal of the guilty determination as the facility superintendent’s designee … . … Generally, the facility review officer is charged with reviewing each misbehavior report issued and, considering the seriousness of the alleged violations in the report, determining the appropriate tier level classification … . Here, petitioner, both during the hearing and in his administrative appeal, challenged certain actions taken by the facility review officer concerning his review of the misbehavior report. … [I]n reviewing the misbehavior report, the facility review officer viewed the video that was to be presented as evidence of guilt at the hearing. Based upon his viewing of the video, the facility review officer informed petitioner in a memorandum prepared prior to the disciplinary hearing that the video shows “you and your visitor acting in an unacceptable manner in the visit room.” The review officer further states “that the video does not show your penis being exposed as stated in the [misbehavior] report that’s why I downgraded the tiering, . . . it does clearly show your visitor with her right hand between your legs in the groin area and her hand moving in a stroking motion.” In light of the fact that certain challenges to the review officer’s actions were raised by petitioner in his administrative appeal, as well as the facility review officer’s expressed predeterminations regarding petitioner’s guilt, we conclude that his serving as the superintendent’s designee to decide the appeal denied petitioner a fair and impartial administrative appeal. Matter of Williams v Panzarella, 2024 NY Slip Op 02118, Third Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, the prisoner’s right to due process of law is violated when the same officer who viewed the evidence and indicated the prisoner was guilty prior to the hearing also decided the prisoner’s administrative appeal.

 

,

THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CONFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF CARE, ESPECIALLY AS THE STANDARD APPLIES TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS WHO CONSENT TO AGGRESSIVE TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, confirmed the revocation of petitioner’s medical license by the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct. The dissenters argued the publications used by respondent’s expert to assess the quality of care provided by petitioner were advisory in nature and did not apply to the aggressive care petitioner offered to terminally ill patients:

From the dissent:

… [T]he findings of the Committee were premised entirely on the erroneous understanding of respondent’s expert, Isamettin Aral, that professional societies establish the accepted standard of care. The record reflects that, on cross-examination, petitioner’s counsel asked Aral the question, “what do you mean when you say standard of care?” In response, Aral testified, “[w]e have accepted guidelines that are published by multiple societies, they include our board, [the] American College of Radiology or [the] American Board of Radiology, [and] national comprehensive cancer networks and these are fairly descriptive, prescriptive guidelines for what a physician should do in the management of cases in very specific areas. When you deviate from those, it is considered to fall short of a standard.”

Although we acknowledge that petitioner pursued what appears to have been aggressive care with the goal of prolonging the lives of patients A-G and was in accordance with their wishes, the record lacks any reference to pervasive standards outlining physician obligations relative to the extraordinary circumstances of terminally ill patients with advanced, late-stage disease. As Aral’s testimony is unsupported by an evidentiary foundation and the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct offered no other proof, we would find the Committee’s determination to be fatally flawed, fundamentally unfair and affected by an error of law. Matter of Yi v New York State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 2024 NY Slip Op 01955, Third Dept 4-11-24

Practice Point: In an administrative proceeding which resulted in the revocation of petitioner’s medical license, two dissenter’s argued the evidence used by respondent’s expert to determine the required standard of care was only advisory in nature and therefore insufficient, especially as that standard was applied to the consensual aggressive treatment of terminally ill patients.

 

, , , ,

THE THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN HOLDING THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO PRESERVE AN “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, affirming the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case, joined the other appellate division departments in finding that a plaintiff may make a “verdict is against the weight of the evidence” argument on appeal without moving to set aside the verdict on that ground:

… [We now join our colleagues in our sister Departments in concluding that plaintiffs were not required to preserve their weight of the evidence contention by moving to set aside the verdict upon that basis … . A trial court has the authority to order a new trial “on its own initiative” when the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence (CPLR 4404 [a]), and this Court’s power “is as broad as that of the trial court” … . Although we believe it remains best practice for a party to challenge a verdict upon this basis before the trial court, in light of its superior opportunity to evaluate the proof and credibility of witnesses … , we nonetheless agree that this Court is fully empowered to “order a new trial where the appellant made no motion for that relief in the trial court” … . To the extent that our prior decisions have suggested otherwise, they should no longer be followed … . Fitzpatrick v Tvetenstrand, 2024 NY Slip Op 01956, Third Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: In this decision, the Third Department joined the other departments in holding that a plaintiff need not make a motion to set aside the verdict to preserve an “against the weight of the evidence” argument on appeal.

 

,

ABSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A MANUAL BODY-CAVITY SEARCH MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY A WARRANT; THE DRUGS REMOVED FROM DEFENDANT’S BODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the drugs were removed from defendant’s body during a manual body-cavity search, which requires a warrant specifically allowing it absent exigent circumstances. The warrant allowing the search of defendant’s person did not specifically authorize a manual body-cavity search and no exigent circumstances were alleged. The drugs should have been suppressed:

“There are three distinct and increasingly intrusive types of bodily examinations undertaken by law enforcement after certain arrests”; namely, a strip search, a visual body cavity inspection, and a manual body cavity search … . As relevant here, “[a] ‘strip search’ requires the arrestee to disrobe so that a police officer can visually inspect the person’s body” … , whereas “a visual body cavity inspection involves the inspection of the subject’s anal or genital areas without any physical contact by the officer and, in contrast, a manual body cavity search includes some degree of touching or probing of a body cavity that causes a physical intrusion beyond the body’s surface” … . * * *

Here, the search warrant that had been previously obtained authorized the search of defendant’s person but did not authorize a manual body cavity search. Notably, the warrant application made no such request. Moreover, although exigent circumstances bypassing the warrant requirement may be shown where “the drugs were in imminent danger of being destroyed, disseminated or lost, or that defendant was in medical distress” .. , no such showing has been made here. People v Chase, 2024 NY Slip Op 01837, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point; Here there were no exigent circumstances and the warrant permitting a search of defendant’s person did not specifically authorize a manual body-cavity search. The drugs removed from defendant’s person during a manual body-cavity search should have been suppressed.

 

,

HERE THE JUDGE’S DECISION TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge had not set forth sufficient reasons for withholding the identities of the jurors. The jury remained anonymous throughout the trial. Jurors were referred to solely by their juror numbers:

… County Court did not cite any threats to this jury and instead based its refusal to disclose the identities of prospective jurors upon a ground that the Court of Appeals has specifically found to be inadequate, namely, “anecdotal accounts from jurors in unrelated cases” … . The People concede that County Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury, in fact, but argue that reversal is not required because the issue is unpreserved and the error is, in any event, harmless. We disagree on both counts. First, when County Court announced that it would not disclose the names of the prospective jurors, defense counsel immediately “object[ed] to that” and argued that no factual showing of a need for anonymity had been made in this matter. County Court then “den[ied] [the] application” and “note[d] [the] exception.” Defendant therefore preserved the argument for our review by registering an objection to County Court’s refusal to disclose the identities of the jurors in a manner that permitted the trial court to address the issue (see CPL 470.05 [2] …). Second, for the reasons set forth in People v Flores (153 AD3d at 193-195), we are unpersuaded that harmless error analysis is applicable to such an error. Thus, reversal and remittal for a new trial is required. People v Heidrich, 2024 NY Slip Op 01841, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Although an anonymous jury may be appropriate is some circumstances, the failure to support the decision to withhold the identities of the jurors must be justified by sufficient reasons. Here the reasons (anecdotal account from jurors in other cases) were deemed insufficient and a new trial was ordered.

 

, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL TURNED OVER TO DEFENDANT AFTER HE PLED GUILTY MAY HAVE AFFECTED HIS DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT PLEA OFFER TO ACCEPT AND WHETHER TO MOVE TO DISMISS CERTAIN CHARGES; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea. After the plea a new prosecutor turned over Brady material which had not been disclosed prior to the plea. Under the facts of the case, defendant’s awareness of the Brady material may have affected his decision to plead guilty to criminal possession of a weapon, a C felony. Therefore a hearing on the 440 motion should have been held:

… [T]he [Brady] evidence may have had an impact on the other charges that may have had an effect on what defendant was allowed to plead to — specifically, the attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree counts … . … [T]hese charges meant that because defendant was indicted with a class B armed felony offense, his plea of guilty was required to be at least to a class C violent felony offense (see CPL 220.10 [5] [d] [i]). The lowest charge that satisfied this requirement was criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, meaning that, based on the evidence before defendant at the time of his plea and sentencing, this was the most favorable charge that he could obtain — a point acknowledged at sentencing. Assuming, without deciding, that such evidence constituted Brady materials that were not disclosed, and further recognizing that the gravamen of the People’s main argument suggests that this evidence does impact the other charges against defendant, the record is unclear what impact the disclosure of this evidence may have had on defendant’s decision to accept or reject the plea offer — particularly in the context of CPL 220.10 (5) (d) (i) and a potential motion to dismiss certain charges (see CPL 245.25 [2]; see also CPL 440.10 [1] [b], [h] … ). Therefore, under the unique circumstances of this case … it was an error for County Court to decide the motion without an evidentiary hearing … . People v Harries, 2024 NY Slip Op 01843, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Where the Brady material turned over to the defendant after he pled guilty may have affected his decisions about what plea offer to accept and whether to move to dismiss certain charges, defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without first holding an evidentiary hearing.

 

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