You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a cleaning and janitorial service, Shield Cleaners:

“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, claimant testified that Shield Cleaning contacted her with assignments and told her how long to spend at each assignment, and that she was required to accept unless she was performing another assignment or could produce documentation, such as a doctor’s note, to show why she was not at work. Shield Cleaning worked out the requirements in advance and memorialized the agreements with the client in writing. Claimant was paid by the hour, required to submit time sheets, had a certain percentage of her paycheck deducted as insurance and agreed in writing not to solicit any of Shield Cleaning’s clients as her own. She was also provided with supplies to perform her work and a t-shirt with the company’s logo and telephone number on it. Claimant was paid regardless of whether the client paid, and any complaints about the work were directed to Shield Cleaning, rather than 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 Shield Cleaning was more than incidental and sufficient to establish that claimant was its employee and not an independent contractor … . Matter of Dwightmoore (Lawrence M. Fanfair–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02182, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

,

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

 

,

Criteria for Strip and Cavity Search Met

The Third Department determined the circumstances justified a strip search and a visual cavity search of the defendant. The court explained the relevant criteria:

…[T]he principles governing strip searches and body cavity examinations are set forth in People v Hall (10 NY3d 303 [2008], cert denied 555 US 938 [2008]). Insofar as is relevant here, “a strip search must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing and the search must be conducted in a reasonable manner. To advance to . . . a visual cavity inspection, the police must have a specific, articulable factual basis supporting a reasonable suspicion to believe the arrestee [has] secreted evidence inside a body cavity and the [ensuing] visual inspection must be conducted reasonably” … . Although the police cannot routinely subject all drug arrestees to visual cavity inspections, the police are permitted — in the context of formulating the particularized factual basis required for such inspections — “to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person”… . People v Cogdell, 2015 NY Slip Op 106031, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

,

Failure to Transcribe Portion of Voir Dire Not Reversible Error—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined the failure to transcribe a portion of the voir dire did not require reversal (because the defendant did not request that it be transcribed and could show no prejudice).  The court explained the relevant analysis:

“Although we agree that verbatim recordation of the trial proceedings is the better practice, unless waived, the case law makes clear that the absence of a stenographic record does not, per se, require reversal of a defendant’s conviction” … . “‘Rather, a defendant must show that a request was made that the voir dire proceedings be recorded, the request was denied, and the failure to record the proceedings prejudiced him or her in some manner'” … . Here, voir dire was recorded, except one portion during which each counsel exercised peremptory challenges to the first panel of jurors. However, defendant did not request that this part (or any part) of voir dire be recorded … and, importantly, he does not assert that an incorrect ruling or any prejudicial error occurred during the omitted portion … . People v Chappelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 105486, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

, ,

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

 

Criteria for Intervention as of Right and Permission to Intervene Explained (Not Met Here)

The Third Department determined a fund, which was entitled to reimbursement from any damages awarded plaintiff in a pending medical malpractice action, did not have the right to intervene and was properly denied permission to intervene in the medical malpractice action.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

As relevant here, any person may intervene as of right “when the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012 [a] [2]). The Fund would be bound by any judgment because plaintiff has sought to recover medical costs, as well as other damages, in his complaints in these actions. Despite the Fund’s argument, however, it appears that plaintiff is and will adequately represent the Fund’s interests. At oral argument, the Fund acknowledged that plaintiff’s counsel is competent and will act in good faith. Plaintiff has an incentive to maximize his recovery, considering that he will not receive anything personally if he obtains a settlement or verdict of $537,273.12 or less. Plaintiff is also contractually bound to protect the Fund’s right to subrogation and has agreed to a lien on any recovery … . Supreme Court correctly found that plaintiff is adequately representing the Fund’s interests, and any argument that plaintiff may not do so in the future is pure speculation … .

A court may permit intervention, in its discretion, when the person’s claim has a common question of law or fact with the main action, but “the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party” (CPLR 1013). Although the Fund’s asserted claim has common questions of law and fact with plaintiff’s claims, intervention was properly denied. Intervention would cause some delay because it would lead to duplicative discovery and motion practice, as the Fund and plaintiff could each separately seek demands and relief from the multiple defendants … . This could also cause some prejudice to defendants, who would be required to respond to similar repetitive demands and motions, as well as the possibility of the Fund calling additional witnesses or even experts at trial. The Court of Appeals has even acknowledged that allowing a provider of medical benefit payments to intervene could create tension between the injured party and his or her insurer,… and “inevitably complicates settlement negotiations” … . Mavente v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 01849, 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