You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Reference to Statute in Indictment Cures Any Omission from the Indictment’s Description of the Elements of the Offense

The Third Department noted that failure to include an element of an offense in the description of the offense in the indictment is cured by a reference (in the indictment) to the relevant statute:

To be sure, defendant's claim that the indictment at issue is jurisdictionally defective survives both his guilty plea and his waiver of the right to appeal … . That said, “[w]here an indictment count incorporates by reference the statutory provision applicable to the crime intended to be charged, it has been repeatedly held that this is sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge and, therefore, renders the count jurisdictionally valid” … .

Here, defendant pleaded guilty under count 1 of the indictment to the reduced charge of attempting promoting prison contraband in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25 [1]). While it is true that count 1 of the indictment did not allege that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully” introduced dangerous contraband into the correctional facility where he was incarcerated, said count did expressly incorporate by reference the provisions of Penal Law § 205.25 (1), thereby rendering such count jurisdictionally valid… . People v Cane, 2014 NY Slip Op 08879, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

,

Negligent Training and Supervision Causes of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment/Lawsuit Stemmed from Sexual Contact Between an Employee of Defendant Residential Facility and Plaintiff, Who Was 14 Years Old

In a case stemming from an employee's (Williams') sexual contact with the plaintiff, a 14-year-old resident of defendant Berkshire Farm Center and Services for Youth, the Third Department determined the negligent training and supervision causes of action properly survived summary judgment:

In order to succeed on a claim of negligent training and supervision of an employee, it must be demonstrated that the employer “knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … and that the allegedly deficient supervision or training was a proximate cause of such injury … . In support of its motion seeking the dismissal of plaintiff's negligent training and supervision claims, defendant presented testimony from its employees — including those who assumed supervisory positions — indicating that there were no prior indicia or reports of any inappropriate conduct by Williams toward the youths residing in the detention facility and that the news of the incident with plaintiff came as a complete surprise … . * * *

…Review of the testimony of defendant's employees reveals that there was a general reluctance on the part of several staff members to report policy violations to supervisors or register complaints regarding staff conduct. Two staff members, in particular, testified that the director was not responsive to reports of improper conduct and she disregarded staff concerns regarding, among other things, scheduling male counselors to work alone during overnight shifts while there were female residents — some of whom were characterized as highly sexually active — in the facility. One staff member testified that he was aware of an incident in which Williams told plaintiff that she was “sexy” as she was returning to her room in a towel after having taken a shower, but he did not confront Williams or report it to his supervisors. Other evidence exists evincing Williams' propensity to engage in inappropriate contact with youths in the facility, including one occasion where it was discovered that a female resident had written Williams' phone number on a slip of paper. Rather than make a comprehensive inquiry about the matter, defendant limited its investigation to questioning the female and Williams. Despite the nature of the incident, defendant's director denied having any concerns about Williams' interaction with the residents. Other testimony by staff members described Williams as a counselor who appeared to relish having authority over the children and he acted aggressively toward them and without apparent concern for their interests. Specifically, one counselor averred that he observed Williams tell a female resident that he would “be with her” under different circumstances and that, although this staff member reported the exchange to a supervisor, Williams was not disciplined. Other complaints to supervisors regarding Williams' improper conduct appear to have gone unaddressed, causing one counselor to opine during his deposition that such reports “went in one ear and out the other.” Viewing this evidence, as well as counselor testimony that defendant did not test or otherwise ensure that its staff members were knowledgeable and compliant with its written policies and instructional materials, in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment on these causes of action … . Hicks v Berkshire Farm Ctr & Servs for Youth, 2014 NY Slip Op 0889, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

Breach of Contract Lawsuit Precluded by Claimant’s Failure to Comply With Notice Requirements Which Were Conditions Precedent—Alleged Misconduct by Defendant Did Not Prevent Compliance with Conditions Precedent—Conditions Precedent Not Waived by Defendant’s Participation In an Attempt to Resolve the Dispute

The Third Department noted that, absent any claim that defendant's misconduct prevented claimant from fulfilling the notice requirements in the contract, the notice requirements were conditions precedent which, because they were not met, precluded the breach of contract lawsuit:

Claimant alleged seven specific items of damages, each of which was subject to contract provisions requiring that notice be provided to defendant within 10 work days and that certain records be kept and submitted to defendant. The contract provided that “[t]he notification and record-keeping provisions of this Contract shall be strictly complied with for disputes of any nature and are a condition precedent to any recovery” … . No party can prevail on a breach of contract claim if that party has failed to perform a specified condition precedent … . According to the contract, the contractor's failure to supply the required notice and submit the required records is deemed a waiver of any related claim by the contractor, “notwithstanding the fact that [defendant] may have actual notice of the facts and circumstances which comprise such dispute and is not prejudiced by said failure.”

Defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that claimant did not comply with the condition precedent, in that claimant did not provide timely notice for the alleged items of damages and did not timely submit the required records … . In response, claimant did not provide proof that it complied with the notice and record-keeping requirements, but argued that defendant waived noncompliance, had actual knowledge of the disputed items and prevented claimant from complying with those requirements. Those arguments are unavailing. Fahs Constr Group Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 0885, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

,

Sheriff’s Deputy’s Driving During an Emergency Operation Did Not Rise to the “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Liability

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the sheriff's department because the conduct of the sheriff's deputy (Curry) involved in the vehicle accident did not meet the “reckless disregard” standard for vehicles involved in “emergency operations.”  The accident happened when the deputy made a U-turn because he noticed a police officer who appeared to be “having trouble with” a detained suspect:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (a) exempts the drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from the requirements of certain traffic laws when they are 'involved in an emergency operation'” … . This statutory qualified immunity “precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the conduct rises to the level of recklessness” … . By statute, “[e]very . . . police vehicle” is an “authorized emergency vehicle” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (a) and (b) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101 [emphasis added]), and the fact that Curry's police vehicle was unmarked does not compel a contrary conclusion (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101…), although it may be relevant to the inquiry into whether he acted recklessly … .

We further find that Curry was exempt from certain traffic laws because he was engaged in an “emergency operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 114-b, 1104 [a]…). Specifically, among other privileges, Curry was entitled to “[d]isregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [4]) and to “[s]top” his vehicle regardless of other traffic laws (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [1]). Thus, while U-turns were not permitted at this location, Curry was permitted to stop or slow his vehicle in traffic and to make a U-turn, provided he did not act recklessly … . The evidence is undisputed that Curry, having acted to assist an officer who appeared to be having trouble with a detained suspect, was undertaking an “emergency operation.”  Jones v Albany County Sheriff's Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 08895, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

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

 

,

Leased Right-of-Way Was an Easement Appurtenant Which Can Only Be Extinguished by Abandonment, Conveyance, Condemnation or Adverse Possession

The Third Department determined a preliminary injunction was properly granted in an action alleging defendant’s interference with plaintiff’s leased right-of-way:

Plaintiff owns an industrial building with deeded easements located within defendant’s industrial park in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. Plaintiff also leases from defendant an adjoining parcel with a general right of ingress and egress. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that its leased right-of-way entitles it to a general right of passage of commercial vehicles in connection with its heavy steel fabrication business operated on the premises. Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s use of the general right-of-way and compelling defendant to remove certain obstructions to its right of passage. * * *

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that defendant was unlikely to succeed on its claim that the metes and bounds easement conveyed to plaintiff when it purchased the building from defendant’s predecessor limits and restricts the general right of ingress and egress granted in the lease that was entered into at the same time with that same predecessor. The general right-of-way in the lease is an easement appurtenant that “may be extinguished only by abandonment, conveyance, condemnation or adverse possession” … . Inasmuch as there is no evidence that the general right-of-way was abandoned, conveyed, condemned or adversely possessed, it continues to exist, notwithstanding any easement provided for in connection with the separate conveyance of the building to plaintiff … .

Given that plaintiff has a general right of ingress and egress, defendant may only alter the passageway “so long as [plaintiff’s] right of passage is not impaired” … . Plaintiff presented photographs and an affidavit from its president establishing that defendant’s placement of steel poles along the easement’s boundaries and a locked gate at one of the entrances restricted plaintiff’s ingress and egress, thereby showing a likelihood of success on the merits of its action … . STS Steel Inc v Maxon Alco Holdings LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08694, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s “Agency” Defense to a Drug Sale Addressed Under a “Weight of the Evidence” Review (Defense Was Disproved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)

The Third Department noted that, although the defendant did not preserve his claim his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, an appellate court will review whether a conviction is supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt under a “weight of the evidence” review.  The Third Department then went on to find the defendant’s agency defense had been disproved by the People beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court explained the agency defense:

To the extent that defendant contends that the underlying conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, we note that defendant’s generalized motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case was insufficient to preserve his present claim, i.e., that the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt … . Additionally, defendant, who testified upon his own behalf, failed to renew this motion at the close of all proof; accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review … . “That said, our weight of the evidence [analysis] necessarily involves an evaluation of whether all elements of the charged crime[s] were proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial” … .

Insofar as is relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree when he or she knowingly and unlawfully sells . . . a narcotic drug” (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Defendant does not dispute that he sold a narcotic drug, i.e., cocaine, to the undercover deputy on the dates in question, but contends that he acted solely as the deputy’s agent in this regard and, at best, is guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance … . Under the agency doctrine, a person who procures drugs solely as the agent of a buyer is not guilty of either criminal sale or of possession with the intent to sell … . “[W]hether the defendant was a seller, or merely a purchaser doing a favor for a friend, is generally a factual question for the [factfinder] to resolve on the circumstances of the particular case” … . Such a determination, in turn, may hinge upon a number of factors, including “the nature and extent of the relationship between the defendant and the buyer, whether it was the buyer or the defendant who suggested the purchase, whether the defendant has had other drug dealings with this or other buyers or sellers and, of course, whether the defendant profited, or stood to profit, from the transaction” … . Notably, profit does not necessarily equate with pecuniary gain; indeed, this Court has recognized that a defendant may stand to benefit from the underlying sale when such transaction was undertaken in the hopes of receiving either assistance in getting a job … in exchange for obtaining the requested drugs. People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08672, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

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

 

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