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

 

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

 

,

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

 

,

Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Prima Facie Tort Described

In finding the counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort were properly dismissed, the Third Department described the elements of those causes of action:

…[W]ith respect to the counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress [,] … [defendant] was required to plead “extreme and outrageous conduct, the intentional or reckless nature of such conduct, a causal relationship between the conduct and the resulting injury, and severe emotional distress” … . Notably, the alleged conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency . . . and [be] utterly intolerable in a civilized community” … . Here, [defendant] alleged that, during the course of their professional relationship, plaintiff sent unwanted gifts and letters, engaged in suggestive conversations and made threats of future conduct toward him. Even reading the allegations liberally and accepting them as true, we find that the alleged conduct, while undeniably inappropriate, did not rise to the level of being “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency” … . …

As for [defendant’s] counterclaim for prima facie tort, there can be no recovery under this theory “unless malevolence is the sole motive for [plaintiff’s] otherwise lawful act or, in [other words], unless [plaintiff] acts from disinterested malevolence” … . Stated another way, the act “must be a malicious one unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to injury and damage of another” … . Hyman v Schwartz, 2015 NY Slip Op 02819, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Graphic Designer Properly Found to Be an Employee

The Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that a graphic designer was an employee, not an independent contractor:

…[I]t is well settled that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … . “The determination rests not on one single factor, but consideration is given to whether control was exercised over the results or the means used to achieve those results, with the latter factor deemed more important” … .

Here, claimant responded to a website posting and, after being interviewed, was selected by Propoint to work on client projects at a mutually agreed pay rate of $28 per hour. He was paid every two weeks regardless of whether Propoint received payment from the client. Although there were no set working hours, claimant performed most of his work at the employer’s premises, where he was provided with a computer, software and related items, and he was required to turn in daily time cards. Propoint did not provide claimant with any leave time or other benefits, withhold taxes from his paychecks or prohibit him from working for others, and it required him to sign an independent contractor agreement. Propoint, however, retained the right to review claimant’s work product and direct him to make changes. Moreover, the confidentiality provisions of the independent contractor agreement precluded claimant from including client projects in his personal portfolio. Inasmuch as the foregoing demonstrates that Propoint retained control over both the means and the results of claimant’s work, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of an employment relationship… . Matter of Ramirez (Propoint Graphics LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02825, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Failure to Comply With Terms of Suspended Judgment Justified Termination of Parental Rights

The Third Department determined mother’s failure to comply with the terms of a suspended judgment (permanent neglect) justified termination of her parental rights.  There was evidence the child was thriving in foster care:

It is well settled that a suspended judgment gives a parent who is found to have permanently neglected his or her child “a brief grace period within which to become a fit parent with whom the child can be safely reunited” … . Where the parent’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment is established by a preponderance of the evidence, such judgment may be revoked and parental rights may be terminated … . * * *

…”[W]hile respondent’s ‘failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment does not compel the termination of her parental rights, [it] is strong evidence that termination is, in fact, in the best interests of the [child]'”… . Matter of Cody D. (Brittiany F.), 2015 NY Slip Op 02811, 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