You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Under Liberal Construction of Lien Law Defendant Did Not Waive Its Mechanic’s Lien by Failing to Assert Lien-Based Counterclaims and Cross Claims In Its Initial Answer

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lahtinen, determined that the defendant had not waived its mechanic’s lien by failing to assert lien-based counterclaims and cross claims it in its initial answer and therefore could amend its answer accordingly:

“The duration of a lien is prescribed by statute and the right to enforce it, like the right to file and create it, is derived therefrom” … . That statutory framework “is remedial in nature and intended to protect those who have directly expended labor and materials to improve real property at the direction of the owner or a general contractor” … . The law governing mechanic’s liens is thus liberally construed to ensure that its purpose is accomplished, and substantial compliance with its provisions is generally sufficient (see Lien Law §§ 23, 40…).

Lien Law § 44 (5) provides in pertinent part that “[e]very defendant who is a lienor shall, by answer in the action, set forth his [or her] lien, or he [or she] will be deemed to have waived the same, unless the lien is admitted in the complaint, and not contested by another defendant.” * * *

…[H]ere, at the time [defendant] made its motion to amend its answer, plaintiff’s complaint, read in conjunction with [defendant’s] answer as well as the other pleadings, constituted a sufficient substantial admission of [defendant’s] lien such that, had the matter gone to trial on those pleadings, [defendant’s] rights would have been preserved under the statutory language … . Since [defendant’s] lien rights had not been already waived as a matter of law when it made its motion to amend its answer, its proposed counterclaim and cross claims were not wholly devoid of merit. Edwards & Zuck PC v Cappelli Enters Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08690, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Because the Presence of THC Can Be Detected Long After Marijuana Use, the People Were Not Able to Prove Defendant Used Marijuana During a One-Week Furlough

The Third Department determined that the People did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant used marijuana when he was on furlough, thereby justifying an enhanced sentence.  THC can be detected long after marijuana-use.  The proof therefore did not establish the defendant used it during a one-week furlough:

…[W]e find merit in defendant’s argument, preserved by objection at sentencing …, that the People failed to establish at the enhancement hearing that he violated a condition of his furlough, as the proof did not demonstrate when he used marihuana, i.e., that it occurred during, rather than prior to, his furlough. When the court granted defendant a one-week furlough, it warned him that it would enhance his prison sentence to 4½ years if he were “charged with any criminal conduct” or “arrested for any reason” and that, “[w]hile you are out, if you engage in the use of any illegal drugs or alcohol and I find out about it” (emphasis added), the enhanced sentence would be imposed. At the hearing, while the investigator testified that defendant’s test was positive for THC, he was not able to estimate the date when defendant used marihuana, and conceded that it could have been months earlier; he also recounted that defendant stated, after being told of the positive test result, that “he had been smoking in the jail prior to his furlough” (emphasis added). Moreover, the reference guide for the test, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, indicates that “[m]any factors influence the length of time required for drugs to be metabolized and excreted in the urine” and that the “general time” established for cannabinoids with “chronic use” is “less than 30 days typical.”… Defendant admitted to previously being a daily, heavy user of marihuana, and testified that he did not use marihuana during his furlough.

Given the foregoing, we find that the People did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence … and the court did not have a “legitimate basis” for concluding — that defendant used marihuana during his furlough… . People v Criscitello, 2014 NY Slip OP 08678, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Nature of a “Turn-Key” or “Design-Build” Contract Explained—Three-Year Statute of Limitations for Malpractice Applied to Defendant Architects Who Were Engaged Solely to Design, Not Build, the Renovations

In a lawsuit stemming from the failure of a building facade, the Third Department determined that the contract between plaintiff property-owner and defendant architects was not a “turn-key” or “design-build” contract, which encompassed the entire construction project, but rather was a professional services contract for the design of building renovations.  Therefore the three-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice applied. The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, explaining the nature of a “design-build” contract:

In “turnkey” or “design-build” construction projects, “an owner contracts with one entity to both design and build the project [and t]he turnkey builder is responsible for every phase of the construction from final design through subcontracting, construction, finishing and testing” … . The design-builder generally cannot shift liability and is the “single point [of] responsibility” under a design-build contract, because it is “the [d]esign-[b]uilder [who] has the responsibility of the preliminary and construction design, the responsibility of submitting a fixed sum for the construction of the project and the responsibility for holding the contracts with its trade contractors” … . As plaintiff asserts, it follows that nearly every design-build project involves the existence of two or more contracts — at least one among the members of the design-build team and one between the design-builder and the owner. Here, however, it was not defendant, the purported design-builder, who held the separate contract with the general contractor, but plaintiff as the owner. * * *

…[W]e conclude that plaintiff’s … causes of action — alleging that defendant was negligent and breached the parties’ contract by failing to use reasonable care in rendering its professional services — essentially allege professional malpractice … . Such claims “‘come[] within the purview of CPLR 214 (6),'” which sets forth a three-year statute of limitations for nonmedical malpractice, “‘regardless of whether the theory is based in tort or breach of contract'”… . We note that “‘a claim for professional malpractice against an engineer or architect accrues upon the completion of performance under the contract and the consequent termination of the parties’ professional relationship'” … . 797 Broadway Group LLC v Stracher Roth Gilmore Architects, 2014 NY Slip Op 08689, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

Reference to Statute Cured Any Omissions from the Description of the Elements of the Offense Charged in a Superior Court Information

The Third Department noted that a Superior Court Information (SCI) charging aggravated unlicensed operation was sufficient even though it did not state the road upon which defendant was driving was a public highway because the SCI specifically referenced Vehicle and Traffic Law 511 (3) (a) and therefore incorporated all the elements of the crime:

…[D]efendant argues that the SCI failed to allege all material elements of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree because the People did not state that the crime occurred on a public highway (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a]). While this claim survives defendant’s guilty plea and appeal waiver …, no defect exists when the SCI incorporates elements by specific reference to the crime’s relevant statutory authority, because such incorporation “constitute[s] allegations of all the elements of the crime” …, while also giving the defendant “fair notice of the charges made against him [or her]” … . Here, although the SCI failed to state that the road on which defendant was driving was a public highway, it specifically referenced Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 (3) (a) and, as such, sufficiently incorporated all of the specific elements of the crime. People v Brothers, 2014 NY Slip Op 08682, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

Repeated Invitations to Review 60 to 80 Banker’s Boxes of Documents In Response to a Discovery Demand Constituted Willful and Contumacious Behavior Justifying the Striking of the Complaint

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly struck the pleadings based upon plaintiffs’ failure to comply with discovery demands.  Plaintiffs sued defendants for profits allegedly lost when plaintiffs failed to procure a printing and copying contract with the state.  The defendants sought discovery of documents related to the lost profits (alleged to be $1,500,000). Although plaintiffs supplied some relevant information, the discovery demands were repeatedly met with an invitation to review 60 to 80 banker’s boxes of documents in a warehouse:

We recognize that plaintiffs provided certain documents and that [plaintiff’s principal] appeared at a deposition. This limited cooperation does not necessarily preclude a finding of willful and contumacious behavior… . Plaintiffs had the burden to prove damages and defendants were entitled to review documents supporting the damages claim prior to trial. Notably, plaintiffs were able to create and provide annual sales summaries, but never provided the documents that were used to calculate the sales figures. The record confirms that despite Supreme Court’s frequent intervention and direction to produce the documents in a more organized fashion, plaintiffs continued to insist that their offer to have defendants sift through 60 to 80 boxes of miscellaneous business records was adequate. Indeed, plaintiffs refused to respond otherwise even after defendants narrowed their document request following [a] deposition. * * *

In our view, the record demonstrates “[a] pattern of noncompliance” sufficient to support Supreme Court’s finding that plaintiffs’ conduct was willful … . Under the circumstances, we thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion and striking plaintiffs’ complaint. BDS Copy Inks Inc, v International Paper, 2014 NY Slip Op 08692, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants Exempt from a Consistency Review Under New York’s Coastal Management Program—No State Environmental Impact Statements Required—Federal Environmental Impact Statements Prepared in the 1970’s Deemed Sufficient to Trigger the Exemption Under the Plain Meaning of the Statutory and Regulatory Language

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined that the petitioners, owners and operators of Indian Point nuclear power plants seeking renewal of operating licenses, were exempt from New York’s Coastal Management Program (CMP).  The court explained that the plain language of the relevant statutes and regulations did not require the preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as the Department of State and the lower court had ruled. The fact that environmental impact statements had been prepared in the 1970’s under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was deemed sufficient to trigger the exemption:

Petitioners particularly focus upon the second exemption in the CMP, which exempts from consistency review “those projects for which a final [e]nvironmental [i]mpact [s]tatement has been prepared prior to the effective date of the Department of State [p]art 600 regulations … .” 19 NYCRR part 600 took effect in 1982. Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 went into operation prior to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) taking effect in 1976 and, as such, environmental impact statements were not prepared under SEQRA. Final environmental impact statements were prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq. [hereinafter NEPA]), however, and statements were completed for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 in 1972 and 1975, respectively. Accordingly, applying the plain meaning of the language in the CMP, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 are exempt from consistency review.

The Department nevertheless held that the exemption did not apply to Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 because their final environmental impact statements had not been prepared pursuant to SEQRA. There is simply no basis in law for injecting such a requirement. The Department noted that 19 NYCRR 600.3 (d) is cited in the exemption and refers to final environmental impact statements prepared under the SEQRA regulatory regime, but that regime permits the use of final environmental impact statements prepared under NEPA (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [n]; 617.15 [a]; Philip Weinberg, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17½, ECL 8-0111). Indeed, SEQRA is modeled upon NEPA, and there is no indication that the final environmental impact statements prepared for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 would not have complied with SEQRA … . Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operation Inc v New York State Dept of State, 2014 NY Slip Op 08702, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

, ,

Teacher Who Was Encouraged by the Superintendent to Resign Her Tenured Teaching Position to Take A Library-Position Which Was Subsequently Eliminated Did Not Thereby Voluntarily Waive Her Seniority Rights—She Was Entitled to Reinstatement In Her Tenured Teaching Position With Back Pay

The Third Department determined that a teacher (petitioner) who, at the request of the school superintendent resigned her teaching position to take a library media specialist (LMS) position, did not waive her seniority rights.  After the LMS position was eliminated and petitioner was terminated, petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding to reinstate her as a tenured teacher. Supreme Court granted the petition and the Third Department affirmed:

Respondents maintain that Supreme Court erred in finding that the termination of petitioner’s employment was arbitrary and capricious and irrational, inasmuch as petitioner freely waived her seniority rights when she resigned from her position as an English teacher. Although an employee may waive his or her seniority rights by resigning or retiring, “such a relinquishment must be knowing and voluntary” … . An effective waiver of such rights must be free from any indicia of duress or coercion … .

The record demonstrates that, when petitioner was encouraged by the interim Superintendent to take the LMS position, she expressed her reluctance to leave her position as an English teacher and asked if she could take a leave of absence rather than resign. The interim Superintendent indicated that a leave of absence would not suffice and that petitioner’s resignation was required. After tendering her letter of resignation, which the Board accepted a month after appointing her to the LMS position, petitioner received a longevity pay increase, continued to accrue sick and personal leave time that had carried over from her English teaching position and also received a severance payment from the District that would not have been made if petitioner had voluntarily severed her employment. Notably, when petitioner moved into the LMS position, she assumed such position without any interruption in service … . Where, as here, an employee does not take the necessary “affirmative steps to terminate all aspects of his or her employment by a school district,” no waiver of seniority and tenure rights will be found … . Accordingly, as the Commissioner’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal was arbitrary and capricious and lacking a rational basis, Supreme Court’s judgment annulling that determination shall remain undisturbed … . Matter of Kwasnik v King, 2014 NY Slip Op 08697, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (Caused by the Failure of a Scaffolding Plank)—Therefore Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) Claim

The Third Department noted that plaintiff’s failure to wear a safety harness did not preclude recovery for a fall caused by the failure of a scaffolding plank. Under the facts, plaintiff’s failure to wear a harness could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident:

…[D]efendant alleged that claimant was recalcitrant in, among other things, failing to use an available safety harness. With respect to such defense, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) does not attach when safety devices are readily available at the work site and a claimant knows that he or she is expected to use them but, for no good reason, chooses not to and such omission is the sole proximate cause of the accident … . However, where a device intended to support a worker at an elevated height fails and that failure is a proximate cause of the accident, it is “conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a [claimant’s] injury) to occupy the same ground as a [claimant’s] sole proximate cause for the injury” … .

Here, the facts are undisputed that, in an effort to assist with the construction of a platform, claimant stepped onto a plank on the existing scaffold, which was the primary safety device erected for the work, and the plank collapsed, causing claimant to fall and sustain his injuries. Accordingly, claimant’s decision not to wear an available safety harness, or employ other safety measures that might have been available, could not have been the sole proximate cause of the accident, and the Court of Claims correctly awarded claimants partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Fabiano v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08695, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Out-Of-Possession Landlord Liability Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined an out-of-possession landlord was not liable to an employee of the tenant who slipped and fell on a loose stair tread.  Neither the terms of the lease nor a course of conduct rendered the out-of-possession landlord responsible for repairing the condition.  The Third Department explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Generally, ‘an out-of-possession landlord who relinquishes control of the premises is not liable to employees of a lessee for personal injuries caused by an unsafe condition existing on the premises'” … . “‘Exceptions to this rule include situations where the landlord retains control of the premises, has specifically contracted to repair or maintain the property, has through a course of conduct assumed a responsibility to maintain or repair the property or has affirmatively created a dangerous condition'” … . Whittington v Champlain Ctr N LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08691, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

“Expert” Affidavit Did Not Address the Affiant’s Qualifications for Rendering an Opinion Re: the Safety of a Curb and Sidewalk—Affidavit Should Not Have Been Relied Upon by the Motion Court

In finding that defendant's motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been denied, the Third Department noted that the expert affidavit should not have been relied upon by the motion court because it failed to include sufficient information to qualify the affiant as an expert:

Defendant … submitted the affidavit of an alleged expert engineer who opined that the sidewalk and curb complied with all state and local building and fire codes and the sidewalk was in a good state of repair. A precondition to the admissibility of expert testimony is that the proposed expert is “possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Defendant's proffered expert affidavit does not include the information necessary to permit a court to reach such a determination. In his affidavit, defendant's proffered expert listed the initials “P.E.” after his name, stated that he is a principal in a specific engineering firm, and stated his opinion based on his inspection, review of codes and his “experience as an engineer.” While the “P.E.” would indicate that he is licensed as a professional engineer (see Education Law § 7202), the expert did not explicitly state whether he is licensed in any particular state. He also did not mention anything about his education, what type of engineer he is (e.g., mechanical, chemical, electrical), or any experience he may have that would be relevant to the design and maintenance of curbs and sidewalks. Nor did he attach a curriculum vitae that presumably would have included some or all of that information … .

Even assuming from the “P.E.” designation that this person is licensed as a professional engineer somewhere, merely stating that a person is a licensed engineer is insufficient to qualify that person as an expert in a particular case, absent any proof that he or she had any specialized training, personal knowledge or practical experience related to the subject at issue … . Flanger v 2461 Elm Realty Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08532, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

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