You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Defense Counsel Took a Position Adverse to the Defendant’s—Sentence Vacated

The Third Department determined the defendant’s sentence must be vacated because defense counsel took a position adverse to the defendant re: the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea:

“It is well settled that a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea”… . While defense counsel need not support a pro se motion to withdraw a plea, counsel may not become a witness against his or her client …, make remarks that “affirmatively undermine” a defendant’s arguments …, or otherwise “take a position that is adverse to the defendant” … . Here, when asked to respond to defendant’s pro se motion, counsel advised that, in his opinion, “[County] Court thoroughly explained everything to him . . ., [defendant had] no questions concerning the plea” and that there was no way that he could see that defendant “pleaded without knowing what he was pleading to.” In our view, because counsel’s opinion was adverse to defendant, a conflict of interest arose and County Court should have assigned a new attorney to represent defendant … . People v Prater,2015 NY Slip Op 02806, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Properly Relied on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to Survive Summary Judgment

The Third Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  After shoulder surgery plaintiff experienced numbness and was unable to flex his index finger and thumb.  There was general agreement the injury was the result of specified nerve damage but either the anesthesia-procedure or the surgery could have caused it. The Third Department noted that plaintiff’s expert could not be deemed unqualified as to one of treating physicians simply because he was not a specialist in the same field as that treating physician:

“Ordinarily, a plaintiff asserting a medical malpractice claim must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” … . “Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … . “In a multiple defendant action in which a plaintiff relies on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff is not required to identify the negligent actor [and] [t]hat rule is particularly appropriate in a medical malpractice case . . . in which the plaintiff has been anesthetized” … . Elements of res ipsa loquitur are: “[f]irst, the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Frank v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 02827, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

A Stipulation Cannot Bind an Insurer to Nonexistent Coverage

In finding that a hearing was required to determine if respondent was entitled to supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage, the Third Department noted that a stipulation, which implied the existence of such coverage, could not bind the insurer:

Supreme Court erred in concluding that the parties’ stipulation waived the issue of respondent’s entitlement to SUM coverage. Although the stipulation stated that, “[u]pon the completion of [certain] discovery set forth [in the stipulation, petitioner] agrees to proceed to arbitration,” a stipulation cannot create coverage of an individual, nor the obligation to arbitrate the issue of coverage, where the individual does not meet the relevant contractual prerequisites for coverage … . Stated differently, the stipulation cannot independently bind petitioner to supply coverage where no such coverage exists under the policy. Matter of Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. (Fisher), 2015 NY Slip Op 02837, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Failure to Personally Serve Petitions for Tax Assessment Reductions as Required by the Real Property Tax Law Mandated Dismissal of the Petitions

The Third Department determined the petitions seeking a reduction in tax assessments should have been dismissed because they were served by certified mail.  The controlling statute, Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 708 (1) requires personal service.  Service by certified mail was not a technical defect which could be overlooked:

RPTL 708 (1) required petitioners to personally serve the designated assessment officer, which they admittedly failed to do, and — as this Court previously has observed — “the statute. . . does not permit service by certified mail” … . Further, the case law makes clear that “CPLR 2001 may be used to cure only a technical infirmity” … , and the Court of Appeals has cautioned that “simply mailing the [relevant pleadings] to [a] defendant . . . would present more than a technical infirmity, even if [the] defendant actually receives the [pleadings], inasmuch as [mailing] in general introduce[s a] greater possibility of failed delivery” … . In this regard, we reject petitioners’ assertion that, because the relevant pleadings were served via certified mail, as opposed to first class mail, the admitted service defect may be said to fall within the realm of a technical infirmity. Simply put, inasmuch as petitioners’ service was defective, Supreme Court should have granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the petitions. Matter of Karl v Martin, 2015 NY Slip Op 02824, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Contract Action Barred by Statute of Frauds Did Not Preclude Action Based Upon Quantum Meruit

The Third Department noted that a contract cause of action which is barred by the statute of frauds (re: the conveyance of real property) did not preclude an action based upon quantum meruit:

We agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, based on an alleged oral agreement to convey real property, is barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [1]…). The statute of frauds does not, however, preclude “quasi-contractual recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered” … . Accepting as true the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, they adequately set forth a cognizable claim for quantum meruit based on the alleged performance of services by plaintiff and her expectation of payment from defendant … . Inasmuch as the quantum meruit cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, however, plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that they allege the performance of services prior to April 25, 2007, which is six years from the commencement of the action … . Rauch v Ciardullo, 2015 NY Slip Op 02823, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

, ,

Elements of Conversion, Moneys Had and Received and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Causes of Action Described/Equitable Estoppel Did Not Apply to Toll Applicable Statutes of Limitations

The Third Department explained the elements of causes of action for conversion, aiding and abetting conversion, moneys had and received, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty.  The Third Department further held that the doctrine equitable estoppel did not toll the applicable statutes of limitations and delineates what the applicable statutes of limitations are.  With respect to conversion, moneys had and received and equitable estoppel, the court wrote:

“Conversion is an unauthorized exercise of dominion and control over” someone else’s property that “interferes with and is in defiance of the superior possessory right of the owner or another person” … . A claim can exist for aiding and abetting conversion if the aider-abettor has actual knowledge that the person who directly converted the plaintiff’s property did not own that property … . Here, the complaint alleges that defendant knew of and acquiesced in Jaques’ unauthorized personal purchases from plaintiff’s accounts, that the purchased items were delivered to and used to improve defendants’ home, and that defendant accepted the benefits of these converted items. These allegations stated a cause of action against defendant for aiding and abetting conversion. * * *

Plaintiff properly stated a cause of action against defendant for moneys had and received. The elements of such a cause of action are that the defendant received money belonging to the plaintiff and benefitted from that money, and that equity and good conscience will not permit the defendant to keep the money … . The complaint alleges that money stolen from plaintiff by Jaques was used to improve and maintain defendants’ home, and that defendant consented to these actions. Accepting the allegations as true, and reasonably inferring that the use of this money provided a benefit to defendant, the third cause of action was sufficient. * * *

Supreme Court erred in concluding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel tolled the statutes of limitations as raised by defendant. Although the doctrine precludes a defendant from relying on a “statute of limitations defense when the plaintiff was prevented from commencing a timely action by reasonable reliance on the defendant’s fraud, misrepresentation or other affirmative misconduct . . ., equitable estoppel does not apply where the misrepresentation or act of concealment underlying the estoppel claim is the same act which forms the basis of [the] plaintiff’s underlying substantive cause[s] of action” … . Torrance Constr., Inc. v Jaques, 2015 NY Slip Op 02813, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Child No Longer Had Sufficient Connection to New York State—Custody-Enforcement Petition Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined mother’s custody-enforcement petition was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the child no longer had a sufficient connection to New York.  The court noted that both Title II (jurisdiction) and Title III (enforcement) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) applied:

The mother’s main argument is that Family Court erred in applying title II of the UCCJEA, entitled “[j]urisdiction,” rather than title III, entitled “[e]nforcement.” While title III is not limited to enforcement of out-of-state custody determinations, and its “mechanisms . . . are presumptively available in any enforcement action” (Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 77, at 563; see Domestic Relations Law § 77), several of the sections within title III do refer or apply to custody determinations issued by courts in other states (see e.g. Domestic Relations Law §§ 77-b, 77-d, 77-e, 77-l). Similarly, title II has sections dealing with initial custody determinations and modification determinations (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 76, 76-b), neither of which is sought by the petition here, but the title overall is broader than those sections. Simply because the mother’s petition seeks enforcement of a custody determination, rather than modification, does not mean that the title addressing enforcement must be relied upon independently and exclusively, without any possible reference to the title addressing jurisdiction. Instead, courts can apply both the jurisdiction and enforcement portions of the UCCJEA, where applicable.

A New York court that made a child custody determination “has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until . . . a court of this state determines that neither the child, [nor] the child and one parent, . . . have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]). Here, Family Court determined that the child had lived in Georgia with the father for more than two years and all of her medical and educational records and providers are in Georgia . While the mother and other family members reside in New York, the child did not return to New York — for visitation or any other reason — during the years that she was living in Georgia … . Thus, neither the child nor the father had a significant connection with New York, and substantial evidence regarding “the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” is located in Georgia rather than New York (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]). According to the statute, after this determination, New York courts no longer have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the divorce judgment determining custody. Due to this determination, Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition for lack of jurisdiction … . Matter of Wengenroth v McGuire, 2015 NY Slip Op 02818, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

Course of Conduct Revealed the Terms of an Implied Contract—Complaint Dismissed

The Third Department determined defendant had demonstrated the terms of an implied contract by course of conduct and plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact to the contrary:

…[A]n implied contract exists when the parties have not entered into an express contract, but their course of conduct indicates that they have reached a meeting of the minds that is sufficient to constitute an enforceable contract … . A contract may be implied “as an inference from the facts and circumstances of [a] case, although not formally stated in words, and is derived from the presumed intention of the parties as indicated by their conduct” … . Here, the parties agree that they had a longstanding implied contract, but disagree as to whether the terms of this agreement included the amounts that plaintiff now seeks to collect. Plaintiff asserts that these amounts represent debts resulting from systematic underpayments by defendant dating back to 2006. However, defendant contends that it was the parties’ longstanding practice to resolve payment disputes shortly after each payment came due, and that plaintiff gave defendant no reason to believe that any such disagreements were not resolved or that any charges remained outstanding. * * *

…[T]he uncontradicted evidence reveals that, throughout the relationship, both parties treated all pricing disputes as resolved after plaintiff accepted payment and removed the charges from its statements. Plaintiff put forward no admissible evidence giving rise to issues of fact as to whether defendant was on notice that plaintiff considered any charges to be outstanding after this process was complete, or that defendant agreed, explicitly or implicitly, that it was liable for them. Thus, defendant established as a matter of law that there was no breach of contract, and its motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for breach of contract should have been granted … . Coca-Cola Refreshments, USA, Inc. v Binghamton Giant Mkts., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02834, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

“Clearly Specious” Reason for Fellow Inmate’s Refusal to Testify Warranted Further Inquiry

The Third Department determined the hearing officer was obligated to inquire into an inmate’s (Douglas’) refusal to testify at petitioner’s hearing because the reason for the refusal was obviously specious:

As a general rule, “no violation of the right to call witnesses will be found when there was no prior assent to testify, but the reason for the refusal appears in the record” … . Further inquiry is nonetheless required, however, where the reason given by the witness for refusing to testify is “clearly specious” … . Here, Douglas’ claim to have no relevant knowledge is belied by the record evidence, which demonstrates that he was aware of the interactions between petitioner and the officer and, moreover, suggests that he was involved in the conspiracy against the officer. Therefore, because the hearing evidence “cast[] doubt on the authenticity of the reasons given” for Douglas’ refusal to testify, the Hearing Officer erred in accepting his alleged lack of knowledge at face value and conducting no additional inquiry … . Inasmuch as the determination is otherwise supported by substantial evidence and the Hearing Officer articulated “a good-faith reason for the denial [of Douglas as a witness] . . ., this amounts to a regulatory violation requiring that the matter be remitted for a new hearing” … . Matter of Jackson v Prack, 2015 NY Slip Op 02527, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

,

Misinformation from Defense Counsel, Prosecutor and Judge Re: Defendant’s Eligibility for Shock Incarceration Warranted Vacation of Guilty Plea In Spite of Appeal Waiver/Overnight Guest Has Standing to Contest Search of Residence

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that misinformation from the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel about defendant’s eligibility for the shock incarceration program justified the vacation his guilty plea, despite an appeal waiver. In addition, the court determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether he had standing to contest the search of another’s mobile home.  The owner of the mobile home (Orrego) had supplied an affidavit stating defendant was an overnight guest, a status the provided standing to contest the search:

Given the mistake by all involved in the plea proceeding, and counsel’s failure to provide meaningful representation on this issue, we agree with defendant’s contention that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. * * *

… [A] trial court is not obligated to conduct a suppression hearing “unless the accused alleges facts that, if true, demonstrate standing to challenge the search or seizure” … . Pertinent here, “an overnight guest has an expectation of privacy in the host’s home” and, thus, standing to contest a search of that home … . In our view, the facts set forth in the Orrego affidavit necessitated, at a minimum, that a hearing be held to determine whether defendant had standing to contest the search… . People v Wiggins, 2015 NY Slip Op 02517, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

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