You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

No Appeal Lies from an Ex Parte, Sua Sponte, Judgment/Order

In affirming the dismissal of an inmate's action seeking to challenge the computation of his sentence (dismissal was based upon the inmate's failure to comply with the service requirements in an order to show cause), the Third Department noted that no appeal lies from an ex parte order, including an order entered sua sponte.  Apparently the remedy is a motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015:

…[T]here is “no right of appeal from an ex parte [judgment/order], including [one] entered sua sponte,” such as Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition here … . Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to treat the notice of appeal from that judgment as an application for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]…). Petitioner sought renewal pursuant to CPLR 2221 and, while perhaps more properly viewed as one to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015, the judgment denying that motion presents the salient issues for review. Matter of Martin v Annucci, 2014 NY Slip Op 08539, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

,

“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

 

, , , ,

Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers Described—Collateral Estoppel Precluded the District from Raising the “Faithless Servant Doctrine” in a Related Lawsuit Because the Arbitrator Concluded the Doctrine Did Not Apply

The Third Department affirmed the arbitrator's decision that the school district employee, who had attempted to retire after allegations that she stole school district property surfaced, was entitled to health benefits.  The court determined, given that the faithless servant doctrine was litigated fully during the arbitration and deemed inapplicable, and given the arbitrator's conclusion the employee was entitled to her contractual health benefits, the school district was collaterally estopped from amending its complaint in the related court proceedings to include the faithless servant doctrine:

…Vacatur of the arbitration award is not warranted. “It is well established that an arbitrator's award is largely unreviewable” … . Vacatur of an arbitration award is only appropriate where “it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where 'an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact'” … . Union-Endicott Cent Sch Dist v Peters, 2014 NY Slip Op 08533, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

, , , ,

The Third Dept Upheld the Statutory Amendment Cutting Off Reimbursement of Medicaid Overburden Expenses Incurred Prior to 2006—However the Court Imposed a Six-Month Grace Period Before the Amendment Kicks In [The Fourth Dept Dealt with the Same Question in a Decision Dated 11-14-14—Although the Fourth Dept Also Upheld the Amendment, It Did Not Impose a Grace Period and Did Not Use the Same Reasoning]

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined that a 2012 amendment to the Social Services Law (section 61) eliminated the requirement that counties be reimbursed by the state for certain medicaid expenses (so-called “Overburden expenses”) incurred prior to 2006, when the medicaid “Cap Statute” was enacted.  The 4th Department dealt with the same issues in Matter of County of Niagara v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 07781, 4th Dept 11-14-14.  Although the two courts came to similar, but not identical, conclusions, it is interesting to see the substantial differences in reasoning and result.  Unlike the 4th Department, the Third Department imposed a six-month grace period, starting from the date of the decision, before the prohibition against reimbursement for pre-2006 expenses kicks in. The Third Department dealt with several issues, including:  (1) whether a political subdivision of a state can make a due process claim against the state (the court deemed the issue waived); (2) the amendment of the statute essentially imposed a statute of limitations and therefore did not extinguish a vested right to reimbursement; (3) the amendment is not unconstitutional because the new statute of limitations does not retroactively affect any substantive rights; (4) the special facts exception did not apply; (5) petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring payment of the pre-2006 expenses (because of the grace period):

Social Services Law § 368-a and the 2012 amendment can be read together and “interpreted to achieve legislative objectives that are not inherently inconsistent with each other” … . This Court has already held that, under Social Services Law § 368-a (1) (h), petitioner’s right to reimbursement of overburden expenditures accrued when petitioner made payment to the state for those expenses for which no local share was owed, i.e., prior to January 1, 2006 … . The 2012 amendment did not specifically repeal any part of Social Services Law § 368-a or affect the counties’ inherent right to reimbursement. Rather, the amendment simply imposed a statute of limitations for the payment of claims for such reimbursement. A statute of limitations does not impair an underlying substantive right, but may deprive a litigant of any remedy … . In April 2012, the Legislature could have reasonably decided that, to promote finality of claims and effectuate accurate budgeting, reimbursements from more than six years earlier could be barred. Although petitioner contends that DOH was required by statute to reimburse all counties for overburden expenditures incurred prior to 2006, and that DOH did not comply with its statutory obligations, “[a] statute of limitations may apply even when conduct inconsistent with a statute or the state constitution is alleged” … . Matter of County of St. Lawrence v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 08278, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Declaratory Judgment Action Was Actually Seeking to Open a Default Judgment in a Tax Foreclosure Proceeding—30-Day Statute of Limitations in the Tax Law Applied

The Third Department determined that a proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment was actually seeking to open a default judgment in a tax foreclosure proceeding, subject to a 30-day statute of limitations.  The action was dismissed as untimely:

A tax debtor’s motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure ‘may not be brought more than one month after entry of the judgment'” … . Although the complaint seeks a judgment declaring that the foreclosure is a nullity and does not expressly seek an order vacating the default judgment, it is apparent that the relief that plaintiff now seeks is analogous to that which is demanded in an application to reopen a judgment entered on default and it is, therefore, subject to the timing requirements of RPTL 1131. As the action was commenced more than one month after the default judgment of foreclosure was entered and plaintiff has not demonstrated “either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense,” dismissal of the complaint was warranted … . Goodfriend v Village of Jeffersonville, 2014 NY Slip Op 08279, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

Homeowner Not Liable for Construction-Related Death—Criteria for Homeowner’s Exemption and Supervisory Control by Homeowner Described in Some Depth

The Third Department determined the homeowner was not liable to plaintiff’s decedent (under Labor Law 200, 240, 241 (6) or common law negligence) based on the homeowners’ exemption and absence of supervision (by the homeowner) of plaintiff’s decedent’s work.  The homeowner had provided architectural plans to a contractor for an addition to the home.  Plaintiff’s decedent was digging a trench for the basement and was buried and killed when the walls of the trench collapsed.  The court explained the applicable law in unusual detail:

Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 “impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities” …, the Legislature carved out an exception for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (Labor Law §§ 240 [1]; 241 [6]…). “In this context, the phrase direct or control is to be strictly construed and, in ascertaining whether a particular homeowner’s actions amount to direction or control of a project, the relevant inquiry is the degree to which the homeowner supervised the method and manner of the actual work being performed by the [injured] party” … . That is, “the owner must significantly participate in the project before he or she will be deemed to have crossed the line from being a legitimately concerned homeowner to a de facto supervisor” who is not entitled to the exemption … . * * *

…[U]nder established case law, “neither providing site plans, obtaining a building permit, hiring contractors, purchasing materials, offering suggestions/input, inspecting the site, retaining general supervisory authority, performing certain work, nor physical presence at the site, operates to deprive a homeowner of the statutory exemption — so long as the homeowner did not exercise direction or control over the injury-producing work” … . …

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim, which codifies the common-law duty of owners and general contractors “to maintain a safe construction site” … . As a precondition to the imposition of liability upon defendant as a homeowner, “it must be shown that [defendant] exercised supervisory control over [decedent’s] work and had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe manner in which the work was being performed” … . “When an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from [a] contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Even “[t]he retention of general supervisory control, presence at a work site, or authority to enforce safety standards is insufficient to establish the control necessary to impose liability” … . Peck v Szwarcberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 08290, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

Motion to Intervene Should Have Been Granted—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined that the church elders’ motion to intervene should have been granted.  The church at issue had been funded by the man after whom the church was named more than one hundred years ago. The petitioner sought to have the restrictions on the fund removed so that it could be used to support any local Presbyterian church, rather than just the church founded with the fund. The elders of the church founded with the fund sought to intervene:

“Intervention is liberally allowed by courts, permitting persons to intervene in actions where they have a bona fide interest in an issue involved in that action” … . “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012 (a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … .

Here, decedent was a wealthy philanthropist who funded the construction of a church building, and he provided trust funds that have benefitted that church for over 100 years. The congregation provided some proof reflecting that decedent may have intended assistance to the church bearing his name to have precedence over any particular denominational affiliation. Although it is premature to determine whether the congregation will prevail, nonetheless the congregation will be impacted by this proceeding and should be afforded the opportunity to present its position. Matter of Jermain, 2014 NY Slip Op 08274, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

Failure to Provide Meaningful Employee Assistance in Preparing for the Hearing Was a Constitutional, Not Merely Regulatory, Violation Requiring Expungement—Criteria Discussed in Some Depth

The Third Department determined the failure to provide the inmate with meaningful assistance leading up to his hearing required the annulment of the determination.  The court further determination that the failure was of constitutional, not merely regulatory, dimensions requiring expungement.  The issues were discussed in unusual depth:

…[P]etitioner was not provided meaningful employee assistance and that he was prejudiced thereby. Departmental regulations require that an inmate who is confined pending a superintendent’s hearing is to be provided an assistant (see 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [d]; 254.4). The assistant’s role is to, among other things, “interview witnesses and to report the results of his [or her] efforts to the inmate” (7 NYCRR 251-4.2). The record reflects that petitioner’s girlfriend and the other individual involved provided signed written statements to correction officials and State Police investigators implicating petitioner. Although petitioner requested that his assistant interview the two women to ascertain whether their statements were truthful and voluntary and provided his assistant with a list of questions to ask them, the record reveals that no interview took place and the Hearing Officer made no attempt to remedy the deficiency when petitioner raised the issue at the disciplinary hearing. Thus, the determination must be annulled.

Petitioner further asserts that the determination should be expunged, while respondent argues that the matter should be remitted for a new hearing because this was a regulatory, not constitutional, violation. Notably, the “right to assistance is a right of constitutional dimension” … and the failure to provide assistance is a violation of 7 NYCRR 251-4.2. In this regard, our precedent is not entirely consistent, nor have we clearly articulated the appropriate factors relevant to whether expungement, rather than remittal, is warranted when a petitioner has been denied meaningful employee assistance … . We have, however, held that constitutional violations related to a Hearing Officer’s failure to investigate a witness’s refusal to testify or the outright denial of the right to call a witness results in expungement …, while regulatory violations of such right do not … .

In the case before us, petitioner’s employee assistant took no steps whatsoever to interview the requested witnesses and ask the questions posed by petitioner, and this failure clearly prejudiced petitioner by impeding his ability to assert a defense to the charges. In our view, where, as here, the denial of meaningful employee assistance is absolute and without reasonable explanation, and the Hearing Officer does not attempt to remedy the deficiencies, such denial is comparable to those instances in which we have found a constitutional violation relative to the outright denial of a witness or the failure to ascertain the basis of a witness’s refusal to testify. Thus, under these circumstances, we find the denial of meaningful employee assistance to be a constitutional violation requiring expungement of all references to the matter from petitioner’s record. Matter of Rivera v Prack, 2014 NY Slip Op 08297, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies

The collection of assessments by the defendant from hydroelectric power plants was deemed illegal in a federal lawsuit brought by a hydroelectric power plant.  Plaintiff, a different hydroelectric power plant, thereafter sought return of the assessments it had paid for six years (between 2002 and 2008) in an action for unjust enrichment.  The Third Department determined that action could have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding challenging the assessments as they were imposed.  Therefore the four-month Article 78 statute of limitations applied, rendering the action untimely:

…Supreme Court erred in applying a six-year statute of limitations because, even though plaintiffs have now labeled their cause of action as one for unjust enrichment, they could have raised their claim for refunds in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging each annual assessment, for which the applicable statute of limitations is four months (see CPLR 217 [1]).

“Where, as here, governmental activity is being challenged, the immediate inquiry is whether the challenge could have been advanced in a CPLR article 78 proceeding” … . Thus, whether plaintiffs’ “claims are subject to the four-month statute of limitations period under CPLR article 78 . . . turns on whether the parties’ rights could have been resolved in an article 78 proceeding” … . Indeed, the analysis does not depend upon how plaintiffs label their claims but, rather, we “must look to the underlying claim and the nature of the relief sought and determine whether such claim could have been properly made in another form” … . The purpose of this rule, which results in the imposition of a short statute of limitations to governmental action, is to ensure “that the operation of government [will] not be trammeled by stale litigation and stale determinations” … . Northern Elec Power Co LP v Hudson River-Black Riv Regulating District, 2014 NY Slip Op 08280, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Retroactive Application of New Regulations Affecting the Revocation of Driver’s Licenses for Alcohol- and Drug-Related Convictions or Incidents Okay—No Vested Right Re: License to Drive

The Third Department determined the new regulations concerning the effect of alcohol- or drug-related convictions or incidents can be applied retroactively because they do not affect a vested right:

“Retroactive statutes are those which impair vested rights or alter past transactions or considerations” … . Here, however, petitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by respondent under her discretionary powers (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 510 [c]; 1192 [2]…). Thus, respondent remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing — i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions (see NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 46…). Furthermore, inasmuch as the revised regulations operated only to nominally change the effect of petitioner’s past acts on his future eligibility to obtain a driver’s license and was not imposed as punishment but, rather, to promote public safety, respondent’s application of 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) was proper under these circumstances (see … State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [6]). Matter of Scism v Fiala, 2014 NY Slip Op 08283, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

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