You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Venue Was Not Proper—However, Because the Party Seeking the Change of Venue Did Not Comply With the Statutory Procedure, Whether to Grant a Change of Venue Was Discretionary—In the Exercise of Discretion, Change of Venue Was Properly Denied

Respondent law firm filed a default judgment prematurely (re: attorney’s fees) and immediately took steps freeze petitioner’s assets. Petitioner started the instant proceeding in Ulster County pursuant to CPLR 5240 seeking a protective order and vacation of all the enforcement devices used by the law firm.  The law firm made a cross-motion for a change of venue. Supreme Court denied the cross-motion, found that the law firm had engaged in frivolous conduct, directed the law firm to pay petitioner costs and counsel fees, and ordered the managing attorney of the law firm to complete eight hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in civil practice.  The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court, with the exception of the CLE sanction, which Supreme Court did not have the authority to order. The bulk of the decision is devoted to a discussion of the law surrounding a change of venue.  Supreme Court denied the change of venue cross-motion “as of right,” finding that Ulster County was the proper venue for the CPLR 5240 proceeding brought by the petitioner.  The Third Department disagreed, ruling that Ulster County was not the proper venue because the law firm, the respondent in the proceeding, did not have an office in Ulster County as required by the relevant provisions of the CPLR. But, after an extensive analysis, the Third Department concluded the cross-motion to change venue was properly denied as an exercise of discretion. Because the respondent did not follow the statutory procedure (CPLR 511) for seeking a change of venue (no demand for such relief was served before the cross-motion was made), the cross-motion was addressed to Supreme Court’s discretion. CPLR 510 allows a change of venue where “(1) the designated county is not a proper county, (2) “there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county” or (3) “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change”… .  Although the first criterium was met, the other two were not. Denial of the cross-motion was a proper exercise of discretion:

By failing to comply with the statutory procedure for changing venue, respondent was not entitled to a change of venue as of right. Where a respondent believes that a petitioner has chosen an improper venue, the respondent shall serve, with or before service of the answer, a written demand on the petitioner that venue be changed to a county that the respondent specifies as proper (see CPLR 511 [a], [b]). The petitioner has five days after service of the demand to serve a written consent to change venue (see CPLR 511 [b]). If no such consent is served by the petitioner, the respondent must move to change venue within 15 days of service of the demand (see CPLR 511 [b]). If a respondent fails to comply with these procedures and time limits, the respondent is not entitled to have the motion granted as of right, even if the venue was improper; the motion instead becomes one addressed to the court’s discretion… ). Here, respondent served a cross motion seeking to change venue without having first served a demand for such relief. Accordingly, the motion was addressed to Supreme Court’s discretion… . * * *

Petitioners commenced this proceeding in Ulster County pursuant to CPLR 5240, which provides that “[t]he court may at any time, on . . . the motion of any interested person, . . . make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure.” If a judgment that is sought to be enforced was entered in Supreme Court anywhere in New York, “a special proceeding authorized by [CPLR article 52] shall be commenced, either in the supreme court or a county court, in a county in which the respondent resides or is regularly employed or has a place for the regular transaction of business in person,” if such a county exists in the state (CPLR 5221 [a] [4]). CPLR 5240 is found within CPLR article 52, and the Court of Appeals has stated that a request for court action under CPLR 5240 is properly commenced as a “special proceeding” … . Respondent, by its very designation in the caption, is the “respondent” as mentioned in CPLR 5221 (a). Respondent is a law firm with its main office in Oswego County, which is considered its residence (see CPLR 503 [c]), and no office or place of business in Ulster County. Under a plain reading of CPLR 5221 (a), the instant special proceeding was required to be commenced in Oswego County (or another county in New York where respondent has an office where it regularly transacts business), rather than Ulster County.* * *

Thus, as Oswego County, rather than Ulster County, is the proper venue under either subdivision of CPLR 5221, the first ground under CPLR 510 could support respondent’s discretionary motion to change venue.

The second ground for discretionary change of venue does not support a change, as the record contains no information that an impartial trial would be difficult to obtain in Oswego County. As for the third ground, petitioners asserted that they are residents of Ulster County and the banks that were served the restraining notices and information subpoenas are all in or around Ulster County, so numerous material witnesses appear to be located in that county. Additionally, it appears that the ends of justice would not be promoted by changing venue. In sum, the first ground would support changing venue, while the second and third grounds do not. Although Supreme Court erred in denying respondent’s cross motion as of right, in the exercise of our discretion we reach the same conclusion. Matter of Aaron v The Steele Law Firm, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 03018, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

, ,

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

 

Conviction Based Upon a Plea Allocution In Which Defendant Was Not Informed of the Period of Post-Release Supervision Can Not Be Used as a Predicate Violent Felony for Purposes of Sentencing as a Persistent Violent Felony Offender

The Third Department determined a conviction based upon a plea allocution in which defendant was not informed of the period of post-release supervision (PRS) could not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing as persistent violent felony offender:

Defendant challenges the use of his 1999 conviction as a predicate violent felony, asserting that at the time of his plea to that charge he was not informed that the resulting sentence would include a mandatory period of postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS). “Notwithstanding his failure to appeal from the [1999] conviction, defendant had an independent statutory right to challenge its use as a predicate conviction on the ground it was unconstitutionally obtained” … . It is well established that a court must advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea prior to sentencing, specifically including the existence and duration of any PRS requirement … .

Here, the transcript of defendant’s 1999 plea allocution reveals that he was not advised that his plea would result in a mandatory period of PRS. Rather, defendant was first informed about the PRS through the court’s pronouncement of his sentence. Defendant made comments expressing his surprise as to the PRS immediately thereafter, but he was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea, either during his original sentencing or when he was later resentenced to adjust the duration of the PRS to conform with the requirements of Penal Law § 70.45. Given the apparent infirmities in defendant’s 1999 plea allocution, we find that County Court erred in accepting the resulting conviction as a predicate violent felony for the purpose of sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender … . People v Brewington, 2015 NY Slip Op 02805, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Mayor Removed from Office for Unscrupulous Conduct

The Third Department affirmed the referee’s report recommending the removal of the respondent-mayor from office.  It was alleged the mayor used the authority of his office to attempt to prevent his prosecution in a criminal matter:

Public Officers Law § 36 provides a means by which a public officer for a town or village may be removed for “unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty or conduct that . . . connotes a pattern of misconduct and abuse of authority” … . To warrant removal, an official’s misconduct must amount to more than minor violations and must consist of “self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust” … . When this matter was previously before this Court, we found that certain allegations against respondent, if proven, would demonstrate a sufficiently serious pattern of abuse of authority and misbehavior to warrant his removal … . In a detailed report, the Referee determined that respondent had committed a number of acts of misconduct that were sufficient to warrant his removal. Although the Referee’s findings are not binding upon this Court, they serve “to inform [our] conscience” … and, upon our independent review, we find that removal is warranted.

The first of the allegations … was a claim that respondent had refused to provide funding for the Village police department in an effort to influence the disposition of certain criminal charges against him … . * * *

Petitioners [also] allege that respondent sought “to use his position as Mayor and Village Manager to obtain ‘special treatment’ from the Village’s police department with respect to his various criminal charges and has repeatedly threatened various local law enforcement officials with termination or disciplinary action for pursuing such charges against him” … . Matter of Greco v Jenkins, 2015 NY Slip Op 02815, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Juror Had Personal/Professional Relationships with Two Prosecution Witnesses—For Cause Challenge Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined the defendant’s conviction must be reversed because a juror had personal/professional relationships with two of the prosecution witnesses and defendant’s for cause challenge to the juror was denied:

A juror whose relationship with a potential witness is so close “that it is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20 [1] [c]) must be excused even if the juror states that he or she can be impartial, because “the risk of prejudice arising out of the close relationship . . . [is] so great that recital of an oath of impartiality could not convincingly dispel the taint” … . In determining whether a relationship is so close as to require disqualification, a court should consider factors “such as the frequency, recency or currency of the contact, whether it was direct contact, . . . the nature of the relationship as personal and/or professional . . . [and] any facet of the relationship likely to preclude the prospective juror from being impartial” … . As to the first witness, a former working relationship, without more, will not necessarily give rise to implied bias requiring disqualification … . Here, however, the juror described the relationship as more than merely professional; he stated that he knew the witness well, had discussed many subjects with him, had strong feelings about him and tended to believe him, and he volunteered that he was concerned as to whether the relationship would affect his judgment. The juror’s longstanding social relationship with the second witness was sufficiently close that the witness was aware that the juror had been called to jury duty on the case he had investigated, and sufficiently current that the juror and witness had spoken only a few days before the trial. Thus, this relationship, like that with the first witness, “was far more than a ‘nodding acquaintance'” … . Failure to excuse the juror could have “create[d] the perception that the accused might not receive a fair trial before an impartial finder of fact” … . Accordingly, based upon these two relationships, defendant’s challenge for cause should have been granted. People v Hamilton, 2015 NY Slip Op 02804, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Statutory Provision that the Gaming Commission “Shall” Render a Determination Within 30 Days After a Hearing Is “Directory” Not “Mandatory”—A Late Determination Will Not Be Annulled Absent Prejudice

The Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it annulled the suspension of petitioner’s license to train and own horses because the NYS Gaming Commission did not render a determination within 30 days of the hearing as required by Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law 321.  The Third Department determined the 30-day time-limit was not mandatory and petitioner could only seek relief for a violation of section 321 if he could show prejudice related to the delay:

Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 321 provides that, when respondent suspends a harness racing participant’s license, the licensee may demand a hearing and, “[w]ithin thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing, [respondent] shall make a final order in writing.” The use of “shall” is not conclusive, however, inasmuch as the statute does not impose any limitation on respondent’s power to act or provide for any consequences for the failure to comply with the time limit … . Nor has petitioner cited any legislative history, and we are not aware of any, suggesting that the 30-day provision in the statute was intended to be mandatory. Rather, at the time this provision was enacted, similar language in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law had been judicially determined to be directory … , yet the Legislature imposed no additional language limiting respondent’s power to act when it later enacted Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 321.

Where, as here, an agency fails to follow a procedural provision that is merely directory, the subsequent determination should only be judicially annulled when the challenger can “show that substantial prejudice resulted from the agency’s noncompliance” … . Matter of Pena v New York State Gaming Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 02821, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Jury Instruction Reversed Burden of Proof—New Trial Ordered

The Third Department determined defendant’s conviction must be reversed because the trial court’s instruction to the jury reversed the burden of proof.  The defendant was accused of killing a pit bull in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law  353(a)(1):

….[D]efendant contends that County Court erred in rendering a supplemental jury instruction that effectively shifted the burden of proof to defendant to prove his own innocence. While defendant failed to preserve this issue through an appropriate objection, given the nature of the challenged instruction, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action … . Without question, the People bear the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and County Court so charged the jury twice before giving the instruction at issue. After receiving a further note from the jury requesting definitions for certain terms, including “depraved” and “sadistic,” the court determined that it would “be beneficial . . . to once again go over the definition of aggravated cruelty.” In doing so, however, the court advised the jury: “Thus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not engage in conduct which caused the animal extreme pain or which was not done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner, you must find the defendant not guilty.” This charge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by suggesting that defendant needed to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Compounding the problem, the charge was rendered shortly before the jury rendered the guilty verdict. In our view, this was a fundamental error, requiring the reversal of the judgment and a new trial … . People v Facey, 2015 NY Slip Op 02810, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Forcing Defendant to Go to Trial When His Expert on the Intoxication Defense Was Not Available Rendered Defendant’s Guilty Plea Involuntary and Coerced

The Third Department vacated defendant’s plea, finding that it was involuntary and coerced.  Defendant admitted shooting and killing his brother, but it was clear that defendant was highly intoxicated at the time of the offense.  County Court set the matter down for trial at a time the defendant’s expert on the intoxication defense was not available, after the court concluded there was no merit to the defense. During the plea colloquy the defendant answered “to the best of my recollection” when asked whether he had caused the death of his brother. Under these circumstances the waiver of appeal and the failure to preserve the error did not preclude review:

…[D]efendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal but is unpreserved for our review in the absence of a motion to withdraw his plea … . That said, we nonetheless are persuaded that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was triggered here, as defendant’s qualified response — “[t]o the best of my recollection” — to County Court’s key question during the course of the plea allocution cast doubt upon his guilt and/or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea, thereby obligating County Court to undertake further inquiry prior to accepting defendant’s plea … — particularly in view of the transcripts of the 911 call, wherein defendant clearly indicated that he had been drinking on the day of the shooting, and defendant’s Town Court arraignment, wherein the Town Judge expressed concerns regarding defendant’s ability to understand the charges against him due to his apparent level of intoxication. We also find merit to defendant’s claim that his plea was coerced. As noted previously, defendant entered his plea of guilty in response to the prospect of proceeding to trial within a matter of days and without an expert witness, and such plea was entered on the heels of County Court’s questionable, pretrial analysis as to the viability of defendant’s asserted intoxication defense. Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. People v Lang, 2015 NY Slip Op 02809, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Conditions of Probation Which Allowed Release of Defendant’s Pre-Sentence Investigation Report Illegal

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined two provisions of defendant’s sentence to probation which purported to allow release of defendant’s Pre-Sentence Investigation report (PSI) were illegal and must be vacated.  The court noted that the illegality of a sentence which is apparent from the record survives a waiver of appeal and the absence of an objection:

CPL 390.50 (1) provides that a PSI “is confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (emphasis added). The court that is referenced in CPL 390.50 (1) is the sentencing court … . While the People argue that the challenged conditions constitute specific authorization of disclosure by the sentencing court, condition 17, on its face, is a blanket delegation to the Probation Department to authorize disclosure of the PSI to treatment providers if the department deems the request appropriate. In our view, such a general authorization of disclosure by the Probation Department is contrary to both the statutory mandate of specific authorization and this Court’s direction that only the sentencing court can grant that authorization.

Moreover, the requirement in condition 32 that defendant consent to disclosure of the PSI is similarly contrary to law. Under CPL 390.50, criminal defendants themselves are not entitled to their PSI in collateral proceedings, absent statutory authority, except under limited conditions, i.e., upon a proper factual showing of need … . Even when a defendant has demonstrated a need for disclosure, he or she is never “automatically entitled to an unredacted copy of [the PSI]” … . Rather, in light of the requirement of specific authorization and given the sentencing court’s discretion to except portions of a PSI from disclosure, the court must make a determination whether redaction is appropriate … . That is, under the statute, a defendant cannot demand or “consent” to release of the entire, unredacted PSI — only the sentencing court can permit the release of the PSI after the party requesting it has shown that the information cannot be obtained in any other way, and only after the court has considered whether redaction is necessary. People v Fishel, 2015 NY Slip Op 02808, 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