You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Bare Allegation in an Attorney Affidavit that, Upon Information and Belief, the Deputies Lacked Probable Cause to Arrest Defendant, Not Enough to Justify a Hearing on a Suppression Motion

In finding defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied without a hearing, the Third Department explained what is required to warrant a hearing:

“A motion seeking suppression of evidence ‘must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact . . . supporting such grounds'” … . A hearing in this regard is neither “automatic [n]or generally available [simply] for the asking” … and, except in circumstances not present here (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; 710.20 [3], [6]), the trial court “may summarily deny the motion if the papers do not allege a legal basis for suppression or if the factual allegations do not as a matter of law support any alleged ground” … . Here, in support of her suppression motion, defendant tendered the affidavit of her attorney, who merely asserted — upon information and belief — that the deputies in question lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. This “bare allegation of a lack of probable cause, without any factual support, was insufficient to require a hearing” … . People v Briskin, 2015 NY Slip Op 01493, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

Family Court Did Not Inform Respondent of His Rights and Did Not Conduct an Adequate Colloquy—PINS Adjudication Reversed

The Third Department reversed respondent’s adjudication as a PINS because Family Court did not advise respondent of his rights and the colloquy prior to Family Court’s acceptance of the consent finding was inadequate:

Family Court erred by failing to advise respondent of his rights. Pursuant to statute, at the initial appearance and at the commencement of any hearing concerning a PINS petition, Family Court must advise the respondent and his or her parent of the respondent’s rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel of his or her choosing or an assigned attorney (see Family Ct Act § 741 [a]…). Here, the court did not mention these rights at the first appearance on the PINS petition, at which time the court accepted respondent’s consent to a PINS finding, nor at the dispositional hearing. The court’s failure to advise respondent of these rights constitutes reversible error … . Additionally, the court’s colloquy prior to accepting that consent finding was inadequate; respondent merely answered “[y]es” when asked if he had a basic understanding of the proceeding and if he consented to a PINS finding, without any further discussion. To ensure that a PINS admission is knowingly and intelligently entered into, in a proper colloquy “[t]he respondent should at least state and admit the precise act, or acts, which constitutes the admission, and should be made aware on the record of the consequences, the dispositional alternatives, and the waiver of specific rights,” as well as give an assurance of the lack of coercion and that he or she consulted with counsel (Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 741 at 98…). Due to the inadequate colloquy and lack of advisement of rights, reversal is required, respondent’s adjudication as a PINS is vacated and the matter is returned to the preadmission stage. Matter of Aaron UU …, 2015 NY Slip Op 01505, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

,

Appellant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction—Questions of Fact Whether Witness Testimony Was Induced by Threats and/or Promises Not Disclosed to the Defense at Trial

The Third Department determined appellant, who had been convicted of second degree murder, was entitled to a hearing re: a potential Brady violation.  Appellant was an inmate at the time of the incident and the witnesses to the incident were other inmates Appellant, in a motion to vacate the conviction, presented affidavits from witnesses to the incident who averred they were threatened or offered promises by prison personnel in exchange for their testimony.  The court noted there was a question of fact whether the prosecution could be held responsible for the actions of prison personnel (relevant information may have been outside the control of the prosecution):

…[D]efendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Due process requires that the People disclose to the defendant any evidence in their possession that is “material to guilt or punishment” … . The People must disclose evidence relating to a witness’s credibility, including “the ‘existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the witness'” … . “To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . When a specific request has been made for the evidence that was withheld, “the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … . People v Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 01492, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

Delivery Driver Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and determined claimant was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.  Claimant worked as a delivery person for a business (ADS) that transports lost luggage from airports to the owners of the luggage:

Whether an employee-employer relationship exists “is a factual question to be resolved by the Board and we will not disturb its determination when it is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … . “‘While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important'” … . Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the requisite control is lacking.

Claimant paid all of the expenses associated with his delivery work, including the lease of his vehicle, fuel, tolls, insurance, maintenance and his cell phone. For his services, claimant negotiated his own rate of pay and was paid a portion of the commission paid to ADS … . No training was provided by ADS, nor did it impose any conditions on the way that claimant performed his work. Claimant spoke to the customer directly to determine delivery times and was ultimately responsible for lost or damaged luggage. Moreover, under the parties’ agreement, which designated him an independent contractor, claimant was permitted to hire other individuals to perform work, did not work a fixed schedule, had the right to accept or reject assignments and was free to work for any other company … . Matter of Jennings…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01503, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

Motor-Route Newspaper Carriers Were Employees, Not Independent Contractors

The Third Department determined motor-route newspaper carriers were employee, despited “independent contractor” characterization in the distribution agreement:

“Whether an employer- employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” … .

Recently, in Matter of Armison [Gannett Co., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor] (122 AD3d 1101 [2014]), this Court upheld a finding of an employer-employee relationship between Gannett and certain newspaper delivery persons. Here, as we did in Armison, we find that the requisite level of control was present to support the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship. Claimant was required to make deliveries within set time frames and according to other conditions. Claimant was also required to be a licensed driver with a registered and insured vehicle, and was obligated to provide Gannett with a copy of her driver’s license and proof of liability insurance. Additionally, under the terms of the distribution agreement, all substitutes were required to be licensed and insured. Claimant was provided a route set by Gannett and, if claimant was not available to deliver her route, she was responsible for finding a substitute. In the event that deliveries were not made by claimant, Gannett would use an employee to make the delivery and charge claimant a fee. Further, Gannett controlled other aspects of claimant’s work, including prohibiting placing foreign materials on or in the publications. Claimant was also provided access to accident insurance from Gannett’s policy. In light of the foregoing, and despite the existence of other evidence in the record suggestive of an independent contractor relationship — including the distribution agreement expressly designating claimant as an independent contractor — we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was an employee … . Matter of Hunter…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01509, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

, ,

Maltreatment Finding Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

The Third Department determined substantial evidence did not support the Office of Children and Family Services finding of maltreatment.  Petitioner spanked the child for eating soap while petitioner was bathing the child.  Petitioner explained what had happened to the child’s day-care provider, who then reported the incident to the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment:

“‘At an administrative hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence'” … . Specifically, “‘[t]o establish that maltreatment occurred, the agency must show that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care'” … . In our consideration of the underlying determination, “our focus is whether the determination is rational and supported by substantial evidence” … . * * *

A parent is “entitled to use reasonable physical force to promote discipline” … , however, the application of such force may not “exceed[] the threshold of reasonableness” … . Although a single instance of excessive corporal punishment can suffice for a finding of maltreatment …, here, the record lacks substantial evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s conduct “impaired or was in imminent danger of impairing [the child’s] physical, mental or emotional condition” … . Matter of Maurizio XX v New Y\ork State Off of Children and Family Services, 2015 NY Slip Op 01512, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

Insurance Agent Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined claimant, an insurance agent, was an employee of Aaron Casey Insurance, not an independent contractor, and, therefore, was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Whether an employee-employer relationship exists “is a factual question to be resolved by the Board and we will not disturb its determination when it is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … . “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” … .

… [C]laimant was required to work a minimum of 30 hours per week, per a schedule set by Aaron Casey Insurance, and needed permission to take time off. In addition to servicing customers outside the office, claimant was responsible for performing in-office work, including answering phones and servicing walk-in customers. Claimant was paid an hourly wage plus commissions and was reimbursed for the costs associated with obtaining his insurance license. Additionally, claimant was provided training and was required to report back regarding sales leads, his work was reviewed by Aaron Casey Insurance and he had a sales quota and faced termination if it was not met. In our view, the foregoing is more than sufficient to support the Board’s finding of an employment relationship, notwithstanding the existence of other proof that could support a contrary conclusion … . Matter of Fahrson…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01515, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

,

Newspaper Carriers Were Employees Despite Reference to Them as Independent Contractors In Employment Agreement

The Third Department affirmed the Appeal Board's determination that claimant newspaper-carrier was an employee, not an independent contractor. and therefore was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, despite the “independent contractor” language in the contract:

“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. . . [B]oard, 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 employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results [although] control over the means is the more important factor to be considered” … .

The evidence provided ample support for the Board's finding that [the employer] exercised control over significant aspects of the carriers' work and the means used to achieve timely and proper deliveries, and the Board's determination that the carriers were its employees is consistent with prior cases involving essentially similar facts … . … “[a] different finding is not compelled by the existence of a written agreement that identifies claimant as an independent contractor” … . Matter of Isaacs…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01215, 3rd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Defendant’s Verbal Abuse of His Lawyer Did Not Constitute a Waiver of His Right to Counsel—Criteria for Valid Waiver Explained

The Third Department determined the defendant did not, by his disruptive behavior and his telling his lawyer she was fired, waive his right to counsel:

Defendant’s “conduct unambiguously indicate[d] a defiance of the processes of law and . . . disrupt[ed] the [hearing] after all parties [were] assembled and ready to proceed,” and he arguably thereby forfeited his right to be present at the hearing … . Nevertheless, he did not validly waive his right to counsel. “For such a waiver to be effective, the trial court must be satisfied that,” among other things, “it has been made competently, intelligently and voluntarily” … . Thus, the court must undertake a “searching inquiry . . . when a defendant [seeks to] waive[] the right to counsel in favor of self-representation[,] aimed at [e]nsuring that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . Here, Supreme Court did not make any attempt to apprise defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se or the importance of counsel’s role, and there is no indication on the record before us that defendant “acted with full knowledge and appreciation of the panoply of constitutional protections that would be adversely affected by counsel’s inability to participate” … . Indeed, defendant stated that he did not wish to represent himself. Inasmuch as the court “did not make the requisite searching inquiry to [e]nsure that defendant was aware of the drawbacks of self-representation before allowing him to go down that path” … . People v Middlemiss, 2015 NY Slip Op 01208, 3rd Dept 2-11-15

 

Claimant Entitled to Partial Disability Benefits for a Back Injury Until the Relationship Between the Back Injury and Claimant’s Inability to Work Was Raised for the First Time at the Hearing—Claimant Had Stopped Working After an Unrelated Knee Injury

The Third Department determined the claimant was entitled to benefits re: his partial disability (for a back injury) up until the time the Special Fund raised, at the hearing, the requirement that claimant demonstrate his attachment to the labor market, i.e., the requirement that claimant demonstrate his inability to work was the result of the back injury.  Claimant had stopped working because of an unrelated injury to his knee and the Special Fund argued he was not entitled to any benefits for the back injury:

… [A]bsent a finding of involuntary retirement, claimants with a partial disability have “an obligation to demonstrate attachment to the labor market with evidence of a search for employment within medical restrictions” … . As the Special Fund concedes, however, the Board has previously held that awards should be continued until the carrier has raised the issue of labor market attachment, thereby allowing for development of the record on the issue … . The Special Fund does not challenge the principle set forth in the Board's prior decisions, but argues that they are distinguishable. We disagree. The award sought herein was for lost time prior to the date of the hearing, when the Special Fund raised the issue of attachment to the labor market for the first time. The award of benefits for that period was therefore entirely consistent with the Board's prior precedent. Matter of Scott v Rochester City Sch Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01219, 3rd Dept 2-11-15

 

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