You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Presentation of Hearsay to Grand Jury Did Not Taint the Proceedings—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined that the admission of hearsay before the grand jury (the audio of a videotape which could not be muted) did not constitute reversible error, mainly because the prosecution did not intentionally present inadmissible evidence:

We first address defendant’s argument that the grand jury’s exposure to inadmissible hearsay so tainted the proceedings that dismissal of the indictment is required. Dismissal of an indictment is an extreme remedy that is limited to “‘those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury'” … . Defendant’s challenge relates to a recording of the bar’s security camera footage that depicted the attack on the victim. Specifically, the victim’s son made a video recording of a monitor as it played the surveillance footage, during which recording he and another person can be heard making several comments regarding the severity of the attacks upon the victim. The People explained to Supreme Court that they were unable to mute the video as it was being played during grand jury proceedings, and that the prosecutor provided an instruction to disregard the audio component of the video recording. Thus, it is apparent that the People did not intentionally present inadmissible hearsay or otherwise engage in an “over-all pattern of bias and misconduct” … . Moreover, in light of the ample evidence supporting the assault in the second degree charge against defendant, we find no basis to determine that the hearsay evidence rendered the indictment defective … . People v Boddie, 2015 NY Slip Op 105524, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

,

“Constructive Possession” Theory Applied to Weapon Deemed to Have Been Discarded by Defendant During a Police Pursuit

The Third Department determined there was sufficient evidence defendant constructively possessed a weapon which was found near him after the police saw him discard something during a pursuit:

Constructive possession can be demonstrated where there is evidence — either direct or circumstantial — that defendant exercised “dominion and control over the weapon or the area in which it was found” … . The People presented testimonial evidence of several police officers, including Gregory McGee, who averred that, after hearing a gun shot during his overnight shift, his investigation led him to observe defendant turning a street corner on a bicycle. When defendant saw McGee’s marked police car, he became visibly nervous and immediately clutched the right side of his waistband. Believing that defendant was armed, McGee exited his vehicle, drew his firearm and ordered defendant to show his hands. Defendant refused to comply with the directive and a physical encounter ensued. As McGee holstered his handgun and attempted to grab his taser, defendant fled on his bicycle. McGee then radioed for assistance while pursuing defendant on foot and a responding police officer, Jason Seward, pulled his patrol car onto the sidewalk in order to block defendant. McGee testified that, as defendant ran around the patrol car, he observed defendant’s hand emerge from under his sweatshirt and throw something, which created a sound of “metal hitting the ground.” As Seward continued to pursue defendant, McGee found a handgun on the sidewalk a few feet from Seward’s patrol car. Shortly thereafter, defendant was apprehended and the handgun was later confirmed to contain three rounds of “live” ammunition and one spent shell casing, indicating that the handgun had been fired once.

… “[V]iewing the evidence in a neutral light and according deference to the jury’s credibility determinations,” we find that defendant had constructive possession of the gun such that the conviction was not contrary to the weight of the evidence … . People v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 105216, 3rd Dept, 3-12-15

 

,

Defendant Properly Precluded from Introducing Medical Records Without Accompanying Medical Testimony

The Third Department determined defendant was properly precluded from placing his hospital records into evidence in the absence of any accompanying medical testimony.  The defendant in this DWI case wanted to use the hospital records to demonstrate his failure of the sobriety tests was due to his medical condition, not intoxication.  The trial court correctly ruled that, without accompanying medical testimony, the jury would have to speculate about the meaning of the hospital records:

In support of his theory that his failure of the field sobriety tests was caused by his medical ailments as opposed to intoxication, defendant sought the admission of his hospital records — unaccompanied by any testimony from a medical professional. County Court denied the relief, concluding that defendant’s hospital records, while generally admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518, would lead the jury to speculate as to defendant’s medical condition unless a medical professional offered an explanation. The court did permit defendant to testify regarding his physical condition and hospital treatment, and to introduce photographs of his injuries at trial … . Inasmuch as the hospital records, without explanatory testimony, would have required the jury to speculate as to whether defendant’s injuries caused him to fail the sobriety tests, we find that the court properly excluded them … . People v Collins, 2015 NY Slip Op 105558, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

,

Corporation Is a Proper Respondent in an Article 78/Mandamus to Compel Proceeding

The Third Department determined that respondent corporation (CGFNS), which contracted with the state to provide credential verification services to the Department of Education for foreign-trained nurses, was a proper respondent in an Article 78/mandamus to compel proceeding.  The proceeding was brought by the foreign nursing school after CGFNS indicated it could not verify the school’s credentials:

CGFNS argues that it is not a “body or officer” subject to CPLR article 78 (CPLR 7802 [a]) and that it did not make a “determination” reviewable in this proceeding (CPLR 7803 [3]). CPLR 7802 (a) defines a “body or officer” against whom a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be instituted to include, as relevant here, “every court, tribunal, board, [or] corporation” (emphasis added). CGFNS is a not-for-profit corporation. Courts have recognized that corporations, both public and private, may be subject to CPLR article 78 as quasi-governmental bodies because they are “beholden to the [s]tate for their franchise or charter or the exercise of their functions” (… Siegel, NY Prac § 558 at 989; § 564 at 1001-1002 [5th ed 2011]). As a corporate entity, CGFNS is a “body or officer” subject to a writ of mandamus under CPLR article 78 (CPLR 7802 [a]; see CPLR 7803 [1], [3]…). Matter of American Univ. of Antigua v CGFNS Intl., 2015 NY Slip Op 02028, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

, ,

Engineer/Engineering Firm Did Not Have Standing to Contest Variance

The Third Department determined the petitioner, Klein, an engineer who claimed to be representing neighbors opposed to a variance granted by the town zoning board, did not have standing to contest the variance:

The Town Code permits appeals by “any person aggrieved” by, among other things, the zoning administrator’s decisions (Code of the Town of Queensbury § 179-14-040 [C]). As the Town Code does not define the quoted phrase, it must be interpreted according to its plain meaning … . This language seems to be taken directly from Town Law § 267-a (4). This same phrase in that statute has been consistently interpreted to mean a person who “has sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . Even without establishing an injury in fact, a person is presumed to have standing if he or she falls within the statute’s zone of interests and his or her property is sufficiently proximate to the property at issue … .

The notice of appeal to the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] listed Klein’s engineering firm as the appellant and Klein as the appellant’s agent. Klein and his firm did not exhibit any specialized harm and do not own property near the Kitchens’ property. Thus, Klein does not have standing in his individual capacity or as an agent for his firm. Klein asserts that at the public hearings and in letters he identified himself as appearing on behalf of neighbors. While this is true, at no point up until the day before the hearing on his appeal did he identify who his clients were. The other petitioners involved in this appeal, who later claimed that Klein was their agent, were not listed on the notice of appeal and did not file a formal designation form naming him as their agent — as the Town generally requires — prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for appealing an administrative determination. Under the circumstances, the ZBA did not err in finding that Klein was not a duly authorized agent of an aggrieved party during the requisite limitations period for the appeal and was not himself aggrieved, so he had no standing … . Matter of Fund for Lake George, Inc. v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 518831, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

Transportation-Contract Bidding Requirement that the Carrier Have an “Out of Service” Rate Less than that Required by the State Was Not Preempted by State Law/The Requirement Was Not Anti-Competitive Merely Because It Excluded Petitioner from Consideration—Analytical Criteria Discussed

The Third Department determined the county’s requirement that carriers bidding for a county transportation contract must have an “out of service rate” of less than 15% was not preempted by state law (which allows a 25% out of service rate) and was not “anti-competitive” because the requirement excluded petitioner from consideration.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Preemption applies where there is “express conflict between local and [s]tate law” or “where the [s]tate has evidenced its intent to occupy the field” … . In the Transportation Law, the Legislature has indicated an intention for the state “to regulate transportation by motor carriers,” for both safety and economic reasons (Transportation Law § 137; see Transportation Law § 140 [2]…), and granted exclusive jurisdiction over safety regulations for motor carriers to the Commissioner of Transportation (see Transportation Law § 140 [8]), thereby preempting the field of safety regulations for motor carriers. Although the County’s RFB specification of an out of service rate exceeded the inspection pass rate in DOT [Department of Transportation] regulations, which provide that a motor carrier’s authority to carry passengers within the state may be suspended or revoked for an out of service rate of 25% or more (see 17 NYCRR 720.32 [a] [2]; see also Transportation Law §§ 145 [1]; 156 [2]), preemption does not apply under the circumstances here. * * *

General Municipal Law § 103 (1) requires that municipalities award purchase contracts above a certain monetary threshold to the “lowest responsible bidder” to protect the public’s finances and prevent corruption or favoritism in the awarding of public contracts … . Municipalities are permitted to include bid specifications that may be more favorable to some bidders over others, as long as the public interest is served and the specifications are not intended to ensure that one particular bidder be awarded the contract … . Including specifications in a request for bids often has the effect of disqualifying some potential bidders who cannot meet those specifications, but this reality does not invalidate those specifications. If a challenged specification is not facially anticompetitive, courts apply “ordinary rational basis review” in assessing its validity … . A petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the inclusion of the challenged specifications, and the ultimate award of the contract, was the product of actual impropriety, unfair dealing or statutory violation … . …

The County’s bid specification requiring an out of service rate of less than 15% is not facially anticompetitive, as that standard does not, in and of itself, guarantee the award of the contract to a particular bidder … . The bid specification here, requiring a safety rating higher than the minimum allowed by DOT for a motor carrier to continue operating within the state, does have some rational basis rooted in the public interest, namely, attempting to assure the safety of children being transported under the County’s care. Matter of Blueline Commuter, Inc. v Montgomery County, 2015 NY Slip Op 519277, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

, ,

Questions of Fact Existed Re: Whether Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Rely on Defendant’s Assurances Dog Was Not Aggressive

Plaintiff was seriously injured by a dog procured from defendant after defendant had assured plaintiffs the dog (Brutus) was not aggressive. The Third Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to rely on defendant’s assurances, in spite of three minor biting incidents when the dog was in plaintiffs’ possession:

Defendants argue that because Brutus bit plaintiffs three times prior to the attack that is the subject of the complaint, plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on defendants’ representations as to the dog’s behavior and cannot state a claim for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Defendants also argue that those causes of action must fail because plaintiffs could have learned of Brutus’ aggressive nature with due diligence. We are not persuaded. In order to establish their claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they justifiably relied on defendants’ misrepresentations … . Here, plaintiffs allege that they would not have adopted Brutus if they had been told the truth regarding his prior owner’s reason for turning him over to the Center. Plaintiffs also allege that, after the three biting incidents, they sought the assistance of trainers to deal with what they perceived as a minor issue. Plaintiffs, who have experience owning and training animals, note that the three prior bites did not break the skin and were far different from the aggressive nature of the later attack. Plaintiffs only learned about Brutus’ prior history when they were able to track down the prior owner by posting flyers and they submitted affidavits from the prior owner and her friend regarding their experiences with Brutus and their intent to have him euthanized when they took him to the Center. Under these circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on defendants’ misrepresentation and whether plaintiffs could have discovered Brutus’ dangerous nature with due diligence … . Lawrence v North Country Animal Control Ctr., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 01846, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

Agreement Created Only a Temporary License to Use Land, Not an Easement

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff was granted only a license to use land for agricultural purposes pending repayment of a loan, not an easement.  The two legal concepts were explained:

We recognize that “‘it is often difficult to distinguish between an easement, which is an interest in real property, and a mere license, which implies no such interest, . . . is personal to the holder, is not assignable and is of limited duration'” … . “‘To create an easement by express grant there must be a writing containing plain and direct language evincing the grantor’s intent to create a right in the nature of an easement rather than a revocable license'” … . Aside from the word “grant,” the agreement does not use language typically utilized to convey an interest in land, such as “convey” and “forever” … . Moreover, the agreement expressly speaks to a loan and includes a clause purporting to authorize plaintiff to foreclose upon the property for nonpayment. Where, as here, there is no express time limitation for the right to use the property, that right should be deemed a license, and not an easement …, particularly given that plaintiff drafted the agreement (see 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts § 257). Both the language of the agreement and the loan context lead us to conclude, as did Supreme Court, that Buchanan merely conferred a license upon plaintiff to use the property pending repayment. Kampfer v DaCorsi, 2015 NY Slip Op 01843, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

,

Court Should Not Have Summarily Determined Declaratory Judgment Action In Absence of a Request to Do So/The Mootness Doctrine Precluded Court Rulings on an Expired Contract/The Open Meetings Law Was Violated by the Town

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have summarily considered the declaratory judgment aspect of this hybrid action without a request to do so and without converting the proceeding to a summary judgment action.  The Third Department further determined the mootness doctrine precluded the Supreme Court from ruling on the provisions of an expired contract, and the town had violated the Open Meetings Law by holding closed sessions.  The action concerned the use of property for motorcycle events. Local property owners brought the action alleging that the events violated the allowed use of the land:

It is well settled that a court’s jurisdiction extends only to live controversies” …, and a matter becomes moot “unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the [claim] and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . Where, as here, the passage of time or “a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy,” the claim must be dismissed … . The 2013 agreement, by its own terms, pertained solely to Safety Track’s land uses and events that occurred during the 2013 track season and expired at the end of that year, thereby rendering the challenges to the 2013 agreement moot … . Further, we do not agree with Supreme Court’s finding that the exception to the mootness doctrine was satisfied… . …

In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . In the absence of a formalized motion requesting the “summary determination of the causes of action which seek . . . declaratory relief, it is error for [a court] to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … .

It is undisputed that there was no pending motion for summary disposition of the declaratory judgment action when Supreme Court rendered its 2014 judgment. Nor did the court provide notice to the parties that it was considering the summary disposition of the declaratory judgment action, such that the parties would be afforded an opportunity to further develop the evidentiary record and offer competent proof supportive of their respective positions … .

… Generally, “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [Public Officers Law § 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]). While a governing body may enter into an executive session, it may do so only for certain purposes, including, as is relevant here, the consideration of an appointment or to engage in private discussions relating to proposed or pending litigation (see Public Officers Law § 105 [1] [f]…). However, the body must “identify the subject matter to be discussed . . . with some degree of particularity”… . * * * As the Town failed to demonstrate that it comported with the relevant statutory provisions when conducting the instant executive sessions, such sessions were violative of the Public Officers Law … . Matter of Ballard v New York Safety Track LLC. 2015 NY Slip Op 01845, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

“Attempted Felony Assault” Charge Jurisdictionally Defective

The Third Department determined the “attempted felony assault” charge in the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended:

We do find that the conviction for attempted assault in the first degree cannot stand. Defendant was charged under the theory that, during the course of the kidnapping, he attempted to cause serious physical injury when he choked the victim a second time after she made an abortive effort to get help (see Penal Law § 120.10 [4]). An attempt to commit a crime requires that a person, “with intent to commit a crime, . . . engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime” (Penal Law § 110.00). In contrast, felony assault punishes a felon for the actual consequences of his or her actions, and “there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended” … . Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not advance this specific issue in his appellate brief, the count of the indictment charging him with attempted felony assault is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed … . People v Mccann, 2015 NY Slip Op 01830, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

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