You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Revocation of Pistol Permit Upheld Despite Petitioner’s Acquittal on Related Criminal Charges—No Formal Revocation Hearing Is Required

In affirming the revocation of a pistol permit, the Third Department explained the criteria for review.  Here the petitioner had displayed a weapon during an altercation with a neighbor and had been acquitted of the related menacing charges.  The Third Department noted that no formal revocation hearing is required as long as petitioner has notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond:

There is no question that “[r]espondent [the judge who revoked the permit] is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and may do so for any good cause, including a finding that the petitioner lack[s] the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous instrument. . . , or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit” … . No formal revocation hearing is required, and due process will be satisfied where the petitioner has been provided with notice of the charges and afforded an adequate opportunity to respond thereto … . Upon review, “respondent’s resolution of factual issues and credibility assessments are accorded deference, and the determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or a showing that [such determination] was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner” … . Matter of DeAngelo v Burns, 2015 NY Slip Op 00669, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

,

Penalty of Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Properly Assessed Against Claimant’s Attorney for Making Baseless Requests for a Change of Venue

The Third Department determined that the penalty of reasonable attorney’s fees was appropriate where claimant’s counsel made several baseless requests for a change of venue:

We have repeatedly upheld the imposition of a penalty of reasonable counsel fees pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 114—a (3) (ii) when, as here, the record contains substantial evidence that a venue request was made without a reasonable basis … . The record reflects that there was no legitimate basis for seeking the venue change and the Board had previously rejected several similarly-worded venue change requests by counsel. Under these circumstances, the Board did not exceed its authority in assessing a penalty against counsel based upon the filings of the request to change venue and the appeal to the Board without reasonable grounds (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a [3] [ii]; see also Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 23, 142), and its decision will not be disturbed … . Matter of Estwick v Risk Mgt Planning, 2015 NY Slip Op 00686, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

Responsibility for Payments for a 1999 Claim (Which Was Reopened After 13 Years) Shifted from the Workers’ Compensation Carrier to the Special Fund—Rationale for the Special Fund Explained—Payments Made by Carrier Re: a 2005 Claim Were Not Partially Attributable to the 1999 Claim—Therefore the Carrier Was No Longer Responsible for Payments Re: the 1999 Claim

The Third Department determined payments made by the employer re: a 2005 claim were not partially attributable to a 1999 claim. Therefore, any “new” payments re: the 1999 claim were the responsibility of the Special Fund, not the Workers’ Compensation carrier:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) provides, in relevant part, that “when an application for compensation is made by an employee . . . after a lapse of seven years from the date of the injury . . . and also a lapse of three years from the date of the last payment of compensation, . . . if an award is made it shall be against the special fund” … . “The purpose of [the statute] is to save employers and insurance carriers from liability . . . for stale claims of injured employees” … . Here, the 1999 claim was reopened in 2012, approximately 13 years after the December 3, 1999 injury and 12 years after the September 27, 2000 closing of the case. The Special Fund, however, asserts that the carrier continued to make payments on the 2005 claim that it knew were partially attributable to injuries sustained by claimant in connection with the 1999 claim and that, consequently, three years did not pass from the date of the last payment of compensation, thereby precluding liability from shifting under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. We note that “[p]ayments that are made voluntarily, and in recognition of the employer’s liability, are considered advance compensation and will prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund” … . Significantly, “whether an advance payment of compensation has been made is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed” … .

Upon reviewing the record, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the carrier did not make an advance payment of compensation. There is no indication that the carrier knowingly made payments on the 2005 claim that were partially to compensate claimant for injuries sustained in connection with the 1999 claim. Matter of Wetterau v Canada Dry, 2015 NY Slip Op 00672, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

One Incident Where Young Children Were Left Alone Overnight Not Enough to Support a Neglect Finding/No Showing of Imminent, as Opposed to Merely Possible, Danger of Impairment to the Children

The Third Department reversed Family Court and determined a single incident of mother’s leaving young children (9 and 3) home alone overnight was not enough to support a neglect finding.  The court explained the proof requirements in some depth:

To satisfy its burden on the neglect petition, petitioner had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent’s failure “to exercise a minimum degree of care” in providing proper supervision or guardianship resulted in the children’s “physical, mental or emotional condition” being impaired or placed “in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]…). There are two prongs: actual or imminent danger, and failure to exercise a minimum degree of care … . The Legislature’s requirement of actual or imminent danger of impairment prevents state intrusion into private family life in the absence of “serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just . . . what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior” … . “Imminent danger, however, must be near or impending, not merely possible” … . * * *

…[T]he record does not indicate that petitioner established the first prong, that the three youngest children were in imminent danger of impairment, when respondent left them alone overnight. One police officer testified that the children were visibly upset when he first arrived at the house. That testimony is too vague to establish impairment of mental or emotional condition, and the record does not contain any expert opinion to that effect … . Even if that testimony was sufficient to show some impairment, it is unclear if the children were upset because of respondent’s actions in leaving them alone … . Leaving young children home alone overnight cannot be condoned, and such behavior satisfies the second prong of neglect in that respondent failed to exercise a minimum degree of care, did not provide proper supervision and her actions fell below what a reasonable and prudent parent would do in those circumstances. Nevertheless, one incident of this improper and irresponsible behavior does not qualify as neglect without a showing of imminent—rather than merely possible—danger of impairment to the children … . Matter of Javan W, 2015 NY Slip Op 00577, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

Safety Regulation Asserted to Be the Basis of the Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action Did Not Apply to the Defect Which Caused the Injury

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s injury from his use of a utility knife did not entitle him to recovery pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6).  The safety regulation alleged to have been violated prohibited a contractor from supplying tools with split or loose handles.  The problem with the utility knife was a loose locking mechanism.  The court refused to stretch the meaning of “loose or split handles” to include a loose locking mechanism:

Plaintiffs allege in their bill of particulars that defendant violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (a), which states, in pertinent part, that unpowered hand tools with “[s]plit or loose tool handles shall not be used.” Notably, this regulatory provision does not merely impose a general duty to keep unpowered hand tools in a “safe,” “proper” or “adequate” condition …, nor does it proscribe the usage of hand tools with “unsafe” or “defective” handles, but, rather, specifically prohibits the use of hand tools with “[s]plit or loose . . . handles.”

Having determined that plaintiffs have asserted a violation of a regulatory provision that “‘sets forth a specific standard of conduct'” for general contractors and owners …, thereby providing a predicate basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), we are left to decide whether the regulation applies to the facts presented in this case [FN2]. Plaintiff explained during his examination before trial that, while he was cutting a piece of plastic with a utility knife, the locking mechanism that secures the retractable blade was loose, causing the blade to break in half and cut plaintiff’s wrist. Whether the dysfunctional locking mechanism can fairly be considered to be a “[s]plit or loose tool handle[]” is a question of law to be decided by the courts … . A fair reading of the regulation upon which plaintiffs rely, however, does not compel us to conclude that the looseness of the locking mechanism — an internal component of the knife and not a visible or functional part of the handle itself — was what the Commissioner of Labor had contemplated in his promulgation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (a) … . We are well aware that the Industrial Code “should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” … . However, while the regulation sets forth a strict prohibition against using tools that have loose or split handles, it makes no mention whatsoever of the locking mechanism found within a hand tool, and we are thus constrained to determine that it is inapplicable. Boots v Bette & Cring LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00588, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Created the Dangerous Condition Which Caused Gas Escaping from a Propane Tank to Ignite/Question of Fact Whether the Injured Employee’s Negligent Act (the Employee, Against the Direction of His Supervisor, Brought a Partially-Filled Propane Tank Inside the Building) Was Foreseeable

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about the out-of-possession landlord’s liability for an accident which ignited gas from a propane tank.  The landlord had converted the building where the accident occurred for the operation of a propane tank refinishing business.  The business was continued by the tenant.  An expert concluded that there were several ignition sources within the building, installed by the landlord, which could have ignited the gas.  Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the out-of-possession landlord had created the dangerous condition.  In response to the argument that the negligence of injured employee (who brought a propane tank which still had gas in it into the building) was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the Third Department determined there was a question of fact about whether bringing such a partially filled tank inside the building (something employees were directed not to do) was foreseeable:

… [I]t is well established that, generally, “once possession has been transferred to a tenant, an out-of-possession landlord will not be held responsible for dangerous conditions existing upon leased premises” … . Exceptions to the general rule do exist, including situations where the landlord retains control over the leased premises, has agreed to repair or maintain the premises or “has affirmatively created the dangerous condition” … .

… [Landlord and tenant-employer] assert that the reckless conduct of [tenant’s] employees was the sole proximate cause of the explosion and that defendant cannot be held liable to plaintiffs merely because it allegedly furnished the condition that allowed for the accident. In order to sever the causal connection in this matter, it must be demonstrated that the employees’ actions were “extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from … defendant’s conduct” … . Certainly, the act of the [tenant’s] new employee of bringing a tank that was not marked as empty into the building –against the direct instructions of his supervisor–was negligent. Nonetheless, defendant and third-party defendant have failed to show that such conduct was unforeseeable, thereby “sever[ing] any causal link between [defendant’s] negligence and [decedent’s] injuries” … . Miller v Genoa AG Ctr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00586, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

, ,

Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others

The Third Department determined the vehicle accident was not the result of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (vehicle and Traffic Law 1104) on the part of a police officer responding to an emergency.  Apparently the officer (Derkowski) had just began a pursuit and was pulling into traffic without his lights or siren activated when the collision occurred:

Derkowski intended to pursue a fleeing suspect in his patrol car, a pursuit that gained additional urgency when he spotted the suspect driving north on Lafayette Street (cf. Muniz v City of Schenectady, 38 AD3d at 991). Prior to turning onto the street in order to follow the suspect, Derkowski looked in both directions to ensure that no traffic was coming. His view of the southbound lane was obscured, however, by several illegally parked vehicles. Derkowski then turned left onto the street and collided with plaintiff. Derkowski did not activate his emergency lights or siren prior to turning, and plaintiff testified that it did not appear that Derkowski had his headlights on. Inasmuch as the pursuit had just commenced and Derkowski checked for oncoming traffic before turning, his failure to have lights and sirens on constituted nothing more than “a momentary lapse in judgment not rising to the level of ‘reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Rouse-Harris v City of Schenectady Police Dept, 2015 NY Slip Op 00591, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

,

Annexation of Petitioners’ Land (Located in the Town) by the City Deemed in the Overall Public Interest

The Third Department determined the city’s annexation of petitioners’ land, located in the adjoining town, was in the overall public interest:

A municipality seeking annexation pursuant to General Municipal Law article 17 “has the burden of proving that annexation is in the overall public interest” (…see NY Const, art IX, § 1 [d]; General Municipal Law § 712 [10]). Factors to be considered include “the benefit or detriment to the annexing municipality, the territory proposed to be annexed, and the remaining governmental unit from which the territory would be taken” … . “‘Benefit and detriment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education'” … . “Another factor entering into the balance is whether the annexing municipality and the territory proposed to be annexed have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community” … .

Here, petitioners established that the lack of municipal water and sewer services in the Town are a major impediment to the development of the property. Mauro testified that he has marketed the property for three years, but potential developers are not interested in it because it lacks access to these services. The services would, however, be available if the property were to be annexed to the City. * * *

The City also established that it provides professional fire and police protection that is better trained and more readily available than the emergency protection services available in the Town. The City bears the expense of full-time, fully-equipped police and fire departments covering a smaller geographic area, while the Town relies on the County Sheriff and volunteer fire departments. As a result, the City’s fire insurance rating is considerably better than that of the Town. Further, any development that occurs in the City will generate more tax revenue to defray the burden on the City’s taxpayers of the expense of maintaining professional police and fire departments, based on the City’s higher tax rate of $21.41 per thousand. For its part, the Town will lose only the minimal annual tax revenue of $51.06, based upon its 2013 tax rate of $1.36 per thousand. Although the Town argues against annexation based on the potential loss of taxes should the parcel be developed, “ordinarily expected adverse tax consequence[s] . . . [are] generally insufficient to defeat an annexation which is otherwise in the over-all public interest”… . Matter of City of Gloversville v Town of Johnston, 2015 NY Slip Op 00575, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

, ,

Courts Should Not Defer to Zoning Board of Appeals’ Determination of a Purely Legal Question (the Meaning of a Town Code Provision)

The Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it deferred to the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) interpretation of the town code (because the interpretation was a purely legal issue) and the ZBA erred in its interpretation of the code. The Third Department found that the word “dwelling” was encompassed by the word “building” and, therefore, the code provision at issue allowed the construction of 74 single family dwellings on petitioner’s (Boni’s) parcel:

Supreme Court erred in deferring to the ZBA’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance, and the ZBA erred in its interpretation of the Town Code as it pertains to the Boni parcel. Although courts generally grant deference to a zoning board of appeals regarding its determination, no deference is required if the issue is one of pure legal interpretation of the zoning law … . Because zoning ordinances are in derogation of common law, they must be strictly construed against the municipality that drafted them, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of property owners … . The Boni parcel is located in a B-1 zoning district, which has 18 listed permitted uses, including one- and two-family dwellings (see Town Code of the Town of Clifton Park § 208-32 [A] [14]). Pursuant to § 208-33 (B) of the Town Code, in a B-1 district, “[n]o preexisting building(s) shall be rehabilitated or remodeled or new building(s) constructed on a vacant lot to a size greater than 12% of the lot size, with no single building to have a maximum square footage exceeding 4,800 square feet. Multiple buildings on a lot are allowed as long as the overall density limitations of this article are not exceeded.”

Essentially, petitioners argue that the word “buildings” in the last sentence of § 208-33 (B) of the Town Code includes one-family dwellings, leading to the conclusion that the Town Code permits them to build multiple dwellings on the Boni parcel as long as they comply with the density limitations. * * *

We agree with respondents that respondent Town of Clifton Park probably never envisioned a landowner being able to build 74 one-family dwellings on a single, unsubdivided parcel in a business district. Nevertheless, the plain language of the Town Code, strictly construed against the municipality, must be interpreted as permitting multiple buildings — including one-family dwellings — on a single lot as long as they do not exceed the density limitations … . Matter of Boni Enters LLC v Zoning Bd of Appeals of the Town of Clifton Park, 2015 NY Slip Op 00428, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

,

Criteria for Interpreting Ambiguous Property Descriptions in Old Deeds Explained and Applied

The Third Department explained the analytical criteria for determining the location of boundary lines using old deeds which exhibit some ambiguity (thus allowing reference to extrinsic evidence).  The court explained that a hand-written, signed deed was preferred over a subsequent, unsigned type-written description of the property, and that the amount of acreage is the least reliable type of property description:

We agree with Supreme Court that as between the handwritten and typed versions of the April 1885 deed, the handwritten deed is the best evidence of the grantors’ intent, as it is the signed original instrument by which the disputed property was conveyed, while the typed version is an unsigned copy created decades later by an unknown transcriber (see Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence §§ 10-101, 10-102 [Farrell 11th ed 1995]). We further agree with the court that the disputed mark following the phrase “more or less” in the handwritten deed appears to be a comma; although it is oddly located on the line below the phrase “more or less” and outside the document’s left margin, it has the same shape as other commas in the deed, including a mark just before the phrase “more or less,” which the parties agree is a comma and which is represented by a comma in the typed version. Nevertheless, the questionable nature of the disputed mark creates an ambiguity that may be clarified by considering extrinsic evidence of the grantors’ intent … . * * *

Where … discrepancies exist in property descriptions, “the rules of construction require that resort be had first to natural objects, second to artificial objects, third to adjacent boundaries, fourth to courses and distances and last to quantity” … . According to these rules, a public highway or other artificial monument takes precedence over the amount of acreage specified in a deed, as “quantity is the least reliable of all descriptive particulars” … . Shattuck v Laing, 2015 NY Slip Op 00413, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

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