You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

,

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

 

After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct

The Third Department determined that a fight with a co-employee after hours at a bar could constitute disqualifying misconduct if the fight was connected with claimant’s employment.  Because the Board, which granted unemployment benefits, based its determination on where the fight occurred, the matter was remitted:

“Fighting with a coworker, regardless of who initiates the confrontation, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” … . Claimant, moreover, was aware that the employer considered fighting to be a major infraction and that it could result in his termination. It is true that the fight occurred at a bar outside of work hours but, in that regard, a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits whenever his or her misconduct occurs “in connection with” his or her employment (Labor Law § 593 [3]…). Claimant was accordingly obliged, “even during his off-duty hours, to honor the standards of behavior which his employer has a right to expect of him and . . . he may be denied unemployment benefits as a result of misconduct in connection with his work if he fails to live up to this obligation” … . Therefore, the relevant question is not where or when the attack occurred, but whether it was connected to claimant’s employment … . Inasmuch as “the Board failed to address this relevant issue, its decision must be reversed and the matter remitted for further development of the record” … . Matter of Moniz (Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02534, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

“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

 

Psychological Injury Stemming from Witnessing the Aftermath of a Suicide Deemed Compensable

The Third Department determined claimant was properly awarded benefits for psychological injury stemming from witnessing the aftermath of a suicide:

Psychological injuries caused by witnessing the aftermath of a suicide have been held to be compensable where “the claimant was an active participant in the tragedy,” as opposed to a bystander … . The facts here are not in significant dispute. On March 31, 2006, a patient leapt from a window at the facility where claimant worked and impaled himself on picnic tables outside of claimant’s office. Claimant was one of the first workers to reach the scene and, despite her lack of medical training, was directed by her supervisor to retrieve an oxygen tank for the patient. Claimant did so, but began to feel anxious and hyperventilate and “lost it” altogether after she was ordered by facility officials not to speak to investigators about her prior interactions with the patient. Therefore, substantial evidence exists for the Board’s finding that claimant was indeed an active participant in the events surrounding the suicide … . The Board was further free to, and did, credit medical evidence indicating that claimant developed disabling depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident … Matter of Demperio v Onondaga County, 2015 NY Slip Op 02533, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

, , ,

Sufficient Factual Allegations of Malpractice Not Made/Denial of Motion to Reargue Appealable as of Right Because the Merits Were Dealt with By the Motion Court

The Third Department, in affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint, determined that the fact that the motion court dealt with the merits of a motion to reargue while denying it rendered the denial appealable as of right:

As a general proposition, “no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue” … . Where, however, the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied … . Accordingly, Supreme Court’s April 2013 order is appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [viii]…). * * *

To survive defendants’ motion to dismiss, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to, among other things, “plead specific factual allegations establishing that but for counsel’s deficient representation, there would have been a more favorable outcome to the underlying matter” … , i.e., an earlier — and successful — award of partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. This plaintiff failed to do. Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 02151, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

 

Drivers Transporting Patients to a Physical Therapy Facility Are Employees Not Independent Contractors

The Third Department determined drivers for Agewell, a physical therapy center, (bringing patients to the facility) were employees, not independent contractors:

Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the appeal board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion” … . An employment relationship will be found “when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with “‘control over the means [being] the more important factor'” … . In contrast, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced,” such as supplying form contracts, requiring periodic reports and attendance at meetings, giving instruction on what to wear or how to make a presentation, “without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results[,] will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that Agewell set the driver’s schedules, determining the order in which multiple clients would be picked up, and required the drivers to sign in and out. Drivers typically used Agewell’s vehicles with the company logo on them and its credit card when putting gas into the vehicles, but were reimbursed if they used their own vehicles. Claimant further testified that shirts and jackets with the company logo were provided and that he typically wore them, along with a name tag. Agewell also fielded complaints from clients and provided feedback to the drivers on their performance. Drivers were allowed to pursue their own business interests and many did, including claimant. Notwithstanding the existence of evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the control retained by Agewell was more than incidental and sufficient to establish that claimant was its employee and not an independent contractor … . Matter of McAlevey (Agewell Physical Therapy & Wellness, P.C.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02179, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

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