You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Slip and Fall Suit Against Out-Of-Possession Landlord Properly Dismissed

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the out-of-possession landlord (SJM).  The plaintiff slipped and fell because of a loose stairway-tread block.  The stairway was constructed by defendant-company, Stanley, with which SJM had contracted.  However SJM did not supervise or control Stanley’s work. There was evidence the stairway (used only by employees of the tenant, not the general public) did not conform to the tread-width requirements of the building code:

As a general rule, “‘an out-of-possession landlord who relinquishes control of the premises and is not contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions is not liable to employees of a lessee for personal injuries caused by an unsafe condition existing on the premises'” … . There are exceptions. For example, a landlord has a “‘nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress'” … . Liability may attach where the out-of-possession landlord has contracted to repair or maintain the premises, has affirmatively created the condition … or has retained a right to reenter the premises for inspection or repairs and the injury arises from a structural defect or specific statutory violation … . …

SJM’s nondelegable duty to the public is not relevant because plaintiff’s injury did not occur in an area open to the public * * * Although SJM retained a right under the lease to re-enter the premises, this “‘is insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord'” … .

….[T]he condition of the stairway was not sufficient to impose liability upon SJM. Assuming, without deciding, that the stairway did not conform to the New York State Building Code provision with regard to the width of stair treads (see 9 NYCRR former 713.1), the condition does not constitute a significant structural defect or statutory violation as would be necessary to find that SJM had constructive notice of the loose concrete block … . Accepting plaintiff’s descriptions of the accident, the stairway and the condition of the step, his fall was not attributable to the width of the tread, but rather its instability. …Supreme Court properly determined that SJM did not create the allegedly dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s expert does not assert that the stairs were negligently designed, but rather that they were not constructed in accordance with the specifications. Although SJM retained Stanley to construct the stairway in accordance with the architectural plans, as a general rule, SJM is not liable for the independent contractor’s alleged negligent construction … . Wayman v Roy Stanley Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08087, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Defendant-Doctor’s Failure to Mention He Was Under a Stayed License-Suspension In His Affidavit In Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment Was One Factor In Finding the Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Defendant’s Burden on the Motion

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action was properly denied on several grounds.  The court noted that it was troubled that the defendant doctor’s (Stanger’s) license was under a stayed suspension at the time he wrote his affidavit in support of the summary judgment motion, and he failed to mention the stayed suspension in his affidavit.  For that reason, among others, the court deemed the affidavit an insufficient basis for summary judgment:

…[W]e nonetheless are … by the fact that Stanger failed to disclose the status of his medical license when he prepared his affidavit in support of defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The very first paragraph of Stanger’s affidavit recites, “I am a physician duly licensed to practice in the State of New York.” Noticeably absent from both that opening paragraph and Stanger’s affidavit as a whole is any mention of the fact that, only two months earlier, a one-year stayed suspension of his medical license had been imposed and that he was practicing medicine subject to certain terms of probation. This glaring omission is entirely inconsistent with Stanger’s ethical obligations as a practicing physician and, in our view, [*4]seriously calls into question the medical opinion he has rendered regarding his diagnosis, care and treatment of decedent. Additionally, further review of Stanger’s affidavit reveals that the opinion set forth therein was “[b]ased on [Stanger’s] review of the [medical] records in this matter, as well as [his] personal recollection of the care and treatment rendered to [decedent].” In this regard, Stanger acknowledged that he did not complete his charting of decedent’s January 29, 2009 hospital visit until after he (1) learned that decedent had returned to the emergency department the following day, (2) was advised that decedent had died, and (3) had been questioned by another physician regarding the care and treatment he had provided to decedent the previous day. Under these circumstances, we do not find Stanger’s affidavit to be sufficient to satisfy defendants’ initial burden on the motions for summary judgment, thereby warranting the denial thereof. Howard v Stanger, 2014 NY Slip Op 08088, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

, , ,

Defendant, a County Sheriff, May Not Have Had the Authority to Order the Plaintiff to Leave the Airport/Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Defendant Had Probable Cause to Arrest Plaintiff for Trespass and Disorderly Conduct/Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Excessive Force Was Used and Whether Plaintiff Was Subjected to Retaliation for the Use of Protected Speech

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s “false arrest” cause of action, and Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s “excessive force” and “retaliation for the use of protected speech” causes of action. The lawsuit stemmed from plaintiff’s being told by airport personnel that her daughter had not arrived as expected because she missed a connecting flight.  Plaintiff became upset when she couldn’t learn more about the status of her daughter.  Defendant, a county sheriff, came on the scene, ordered plaintiff to leave the airport, and, when plaintiff refused, arrested her for trespass and disorderly conduct. The Third Department determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, as well as whether excessive force was used and whether the defendant acted in retaliation for protected speech. With respect to the trespass arrest, the court noted that defendant may not have had the authority to order plaintiff to leave the airport:

In assessing whether defendant met his initial burden of establishing that he had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass, proof of defendant’s authority to issue the blanket order directing plaintiff to leave the public facility must be examined. This is so because the “right to exclude ‘has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner’s bundle of property rights'” … and, unless otherwise authorized, police do not have the inherent and general rights of a property owner (see e.g. US Const 4th Amend). The record demonstrates that, on the day in question, defendant was a county employee working in the county airport, a public facility. In support of his motion, defendant provided no proof that he was either prescribed by law or directed by the Tompkins County legislature to exercise any authority to lawfully order a citizen to leave this public property (see County Law § 650…). Nor did defendant’s proffer demonstrate that he was asked to remove plaintiff from the airport property by someone with the authority to do so … . Therefore, defendant did not establish as a matter of law that he had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for criminal trespass because issues of fact exist as to whether, at the time of arrest, it was reasonable for defendant to believe that plaintiff was disobeying a lawful order … . Brown v Hoffman, 2014 NY Slip Op 08099, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

Persons Who Deliver Gannett Newspapers Are Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits Notwithstanding the “Independent Contractor” Designation in the Operating Agreements

The Third Department affirmed the unemployment insurance appeal board’s determination that the claimants, who delivered Gannett’s newspapers, were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, notwithstanding the “independent contractor” designation in the operating agreements:

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” … . Here, while there is evidence to support a contrary outcome …, we find that the record contains substantial proof to support the Board’s finding that Gannett exercised control over claimants’ work. Gannett assigned claimants specific routes within predetermined delivery areas, required proof of a driver’s license and vehicle insurance where a vehicle was used to make deliveries and, while claimants were permitted to use a substitute carrier to fulfill delivery duties, they were required by contract to provide Gannett with proof that the substitute had a driver’s license and insurance if a vehicle would be used to complete deliveries. Additional contractual provisions included, among other things, requirements that claimants remove unsold publications from newspaper racks, ensure that racks were properly maintained, reserve publications of vacationing customers and create and maintain accurate circulation records that could be turned over, upon notice, to Gannett. Further, Gannett controlled other aspects of claimants’ activities, including directives to not insert or attach “foreign matter on, into or with copies of any publication, nor insert copies of any publication into or with copies of any other publication” without receiving Gannett’s approval. Notwithstanding the existence of evidence in the record that could weigh in favor of a finding that claimants were independent contractors, including that the operating agreements expressly designated claimants as independent contractors, in light of the indicia of control that Gannett had over claimants, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decisions in these matters… . Matter of Armison…, 2014 NY Slip Op 08079, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Plaintiff Was Injured When an Anvil Fell Out of a Co-Worker’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Opened the Tailgate to Retrieve a Hat—Because Retrieving the Hat Was Work-Related, Plaintiff Was Unable to Sue the Defendant In Negligence (Failure to Warn Re: the Anvil) Under the Theory that Placement of the Anvil in the Vehicle Was Not Work-Related

The Third Department determined the exclusive-remedy aspect of the Workers’ Compensation Law required the dismissal of a negligence suit.  Plaintiff and defendant were co-employees, horse trainers.  While they were working, plaintiff asked defendant for a hat because she was chilled.  Defendant gave plaintiff the keys to his vehicle, telling her the hat was in the rear cargo area. Plaintiff opened the tailgate of the vehicle and an anvil fell out, injuring her foot.  Although plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits, she argued she should be able to sue under a negligence theory because the defendant’s placing an anvil in his vehicle had nothing to do with work.  The Third Department held that, because the request for a hat was work-related, the negligence suit was properly dismissed:

Whether defendant’s actions were “within the scope of employment or purely personal” involves an assessment of whether they were “both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances” … . While at work, defendant offered to lend an uncomfortable coworker a hat and, because “some advantage to the employer, even though slight, can be discovered in [that] conduct, his act cannot be regarded as purely personal and wholly unrelated to his employment” … . Notwithstanding the lack of any connection between the anvil and defendant’s employment, he was “acting within the scope of his employment” when he lent plaintiff the hat — and allegedly committed a tortious act by failing to warn plaintiff that objects may fall if she opened the tailgate — so as to trigger the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law… .  Correa v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08093, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Complaint Based Upon Injury Caused by a Horse Which Had Gotten Loose After Defendant Rode the Horse to a Tavern Could Be Amended to Plead Negligence of the Horse’s Owner as Well as Strict Liability/Vicious Propensities in the Alternative

The Third Department determined plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to include a negligence cause of action against the owner of a horse (Whiskey) which injured plaintiff.  The two theories, negligence and strict liability, can be pled in the alternative. The defendant rode the horse to a tavern.  While the defendant was in the tavern, the horse broke loose.  Plaintiff helped get control of the horse and was injured when he was holding the reigns.  The Third Department noted the 2013 Court of Appeals decision (Hastings) which held that a lawsuit based upon injury caused by a cow which had escaped the farm could be based upon the negligence of the owner in allowing the cow to escape, and not upon strict liability for the vicious propensities of the cow.  Here, both the negligence of the owner and vicious propensity/strict liability issues are raised by the facts:

Defendant apparently disputes plaintiff’s claim that Whiskey’s conduct constituted a vicious propensity–as opposed to normal equine behavior–upon which strict liability can be based. If defendant were successful in establishing the absence of a vicious propensity, this would lead to the very outcome of which the Court of Appeals disapproved in Hastings — defendant would be immunized for Whiskey’s behavior despite having been allegedly negligent in allowing the horse to roam from where it was being kept [FN3]. Inasmuch as we cannot predict how a jury will decide the question of whether Whiskey’s actions constituted a vicious propensity, we discern no reason why the two theories could not be pleaded in the alternative. Thus, if Whiskey’s actions were determined to constitute a vicious propensity, plaintiff would be limited to pursuing a claim based on strict liability … . If, however, a jury determined that Whiskey’s conduct did not constitute a vicious propensity, the jury could then decide whether defendant is liable based upon his alleged negligence in allowing the horse to stray from where it was kept… . Carey v Burton P Schwab, 2014 NY Slip Op 08096, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

Employer Did Not Submit Employee Benefit Plan as Required by Workers’ Compensation Law 25 (4) (c)—Therefore the Employer Was Entitled to Reimbursement Only for the Workers’ Compensation Benefits Paid to the Employee and Not for the Amounts Paid Under the Employee Benefit Plan

The Third Department determined the employer was entitled to reimbursement only of the amount paid to an injured employee as worker’s compensation benefits, and not for the payments to the injured employee from a supplement (employee benefit) plan which paid the difference between the worker’s salary and the benefits:

The employer argues that the Board erred in applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c), rather than subdivision (4) (a) of that section, in resolving its reimbursement request. Section 25 (4) (c) requires that employers seeking reimbursement for benefits paid to an injured employee pursuant to an employee benefit “plan . . . [that] provide[s] that the injured employee . . . shall be limited in the amount of benefits or payments thereunder if he or she shall be entitled to [workers’ compensation] benefits under this chapter” must file “proof of the terms of [the employee benefit] plan . . . before award of compensation is made” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [4] [c]…). This Court has held that an employer’s right to “seek credits against schedule awards for moneys paid pursuant to an employee benefit plan . . . stems from Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c) and is limited by the restrictions in that provision” … . We concluded that subdivision (4) (a), which imposes no requirement to file the terms of a plan and, indeed, “makes no reference to proof of plan terms[,] . . . was not intended to address moneys paid from an employee benefit plan” …

Here, …the employer’s workers’ compensation supplement plan limited the amount of benefits that an employee with a work-related injury would receive as compared to an employee entitled to benefits under the employer’s short-term disability plan–essentially deducting workers’ compensation benefits from the amount paid in salary under the short-term disability plan. Even considering the workers’ compensation supplement plan alone, we conclude that the injured employee is limited in the amount of benefits paid “thereunder”–meaning from the plan itself–if he or she is awarded workers’ compensation benefits (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [4] [c]). While the employee initially receives his or her full salary from the supplement plan, if the employer is reimbursed out of a workers’ compensation award, then the employee has received less in (or is “limited in the amount of”) benefits from the supplement plan itself due to his or her entitlement to those workers’ compensation benefits. Thus, Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c) is applicable and, inasmuch as the employer admittedly failed to file proof of the terms of the plan prior to the first award of benefits, the Board properly determined that the employer’s right to compensation was limited to the amount paid to claimant as workers’ compensation benefits… . NYS Workers’ Compensation Bd v Bast Hatfield Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08082, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Complaint Against Highest Bidder on Real Property Which Subsequently Refused to Execute the Contract of Sale Properly Dismissed—No Agreement Which Satisfied the Statute of Frauds and No Part Performance

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate contract or damages for breach of contract.  Defendant executed and delivered the bidding package and the required down payment, bid on the property on line and was the highest bidder.  When the contract of sale was delivered to the defendant, the defendant refused to execute it.  Supreme Court dismissed the complaint because there was no agreement which satisfied the statute of frauds and there was no part performance.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

​

The statute of frauds provides, as relevant here, that a contract for the sale of real property “is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged” (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). To satisfy that statute, the memorandum “must designate all parties, identify and describe the subject matter and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement” … . The memorandum is not required to be contained in one document; separate “signed and unsigned writings [can] be read together, provided that they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction,” contain all of the essential terms of a binding contract …, and the “unsigned writing [was] prepared by the party to be charged” .. . At least one document signed by the party to be charged must “establish[] a contractual relationship between the parties,” with the unsigned documents referring on their face to the same transaction … . * * *

A contract may be enforced, despite failing to comply with the statute of frauds, “in cases of part performance” (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [4]). When analyzing part performance for potential invocation of equitable principles, courts should only consider the actions and detrimental reliance of the party seeking enforcement of the contract … . Additionally, the conduct must be “unequivocally referable” to the alleged agreement … . Post Hill LLC v E Tetz & Sons Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08089, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Recovery of a Portion of Benefits Paid by the Board to an Injured Employee from the Special Disability Fund Did Not Operate to Satisfy the Board’s Judgment Against the Employer Re: those Benefits (Which the Employer Failed to Pay)

The Third Department determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s recovery from the Special Disability Fund (SDF) of a portion of the amount of a judgment against an employer did not operate to satisfy the judgment against the employer.  The judgment represented workers’ compensation benefits owed by the employer to an injured employee and paid by the Board:

In 2010, the Legislature added a clause to Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (3-a) (7) (b) to provide that, … where a member fails to pay a levied assessment, the member “shall be deemed in default” (see L 2010, ch 56, part R, § 4). Once in default, the member is subject to the enforcement mechanism contained in Workers’ Compensation Law § 26, which provides, in pertinent part, that, where the employer defaults “in the payment of any compensation due under an award,” plaintiff may file, among other things, a certified copy of the decision awarding compensation and “thereupon judgment must be entered” … . * * *

When plaintiff [the Workers’ Compensation Board] was reimbursed by the SDF — which is also funded through plaintiff … it was essentially deprived of the ability to levy an assessment therefor. Thus, the judgment at issue here is intended to assist in recovering the money that plaintiff paid …, as plaintiff is authorized to do under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (g). In sum, notwithstanding defendant’s claim that Supreme Court’s order results in a double recovery for plaintiff, given the statutory scheme, we conclude that no impermissible benefit to plaintiff results. Accordingly, we find that plaintiff’s judgment was not satisfied by reimbursement payments made by the SDF and, therefore, defendant’s motion for the filing of a satisfaction piece was properly denied. NYS Workers’ Compensation Bd v Bast Hatfield Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08082, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Fabricated Checks Using Defendant’s Name and Signature Were Not “Forged Instruments”

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of forgery charges because, although the defendant fabricated the checks at issue, the defendant did not portray herself as someone other than herself in executing the checks:

…[A] “… person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he [or she] utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind” as described under Penal Law § 170.10 (Penal Law § 170.25). A forged instrument is defined as a “written instrument which has been falsely made, completed or altered” (Penal Law § 170.00 [7]). Importantly, a person “‘falsely makes’ a written instrument when he [or she] makes . . . [an] instrument, which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker . . ., but which is not such either because the ostensible maker . . . is fictitious or because, if real, he [or she] did not authorize the making . . . thereof” … . Determining whether a document is forged “does not depend so much on whether it contains a falsehood, but on whether, on its face, it misrepresents its authenticity” … .

Defendant did not attempt to portray herself as someone other than herself in executing the checks … . Nor does this case present a situation in which defendant made out the checks without attaining the requisite authorization from another individual … . Thus, the checks at issue in this matter “were not falsely made,” as provided in the forgery statute … . Defendant’s fabrication of the checks bearing her name and address, as the purported bank account holder, makes her the ostensible maker … and the placement of defendant’s signature on the checks renders defendant the actual maker of the checks. Where, as here, the ostensible maker and the actual maker of the written instrument are the same person, the alleged crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree must be dismissed … . People v Zeller, 2014 NY Slip Op 08068, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

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