You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

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

 

,

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

 

,

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 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

 

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

 

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

 

,

Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether her employer was aware of and condoned the alleged harassment, allowing her sexual harassment suit to go forward.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a), it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice [] [f]or an employer . . ., because of an individual’s . . . sex, . . . to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” … . An employee may succeed on a sexual harassment claim pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) upon establishing that he or she is a member of a protected group, is subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on his or her gender that affects a term, condition or privilege of his or her employment, and that the employer “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take remedial action” … . An employer will be liable for “an employee’s discriminatory act [where] the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it,” and the term condonation includes, as relevant here, “[a]n employer’s calculated inaction in response to discriminatory conduct” … . Tidball v Schenectady City Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 08092, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings

The Third Department determined Family Court had jurisdiction over a family offense proceeding brought by a parent on behalf of her daughter against the respondent seeking an order of protection.  Both the daughter and the respondent were 13 years old. They had been boyfriend-girlfriend off and on since fifth grade.  There had been some sexual activity.  Family Court Act 812 gives Family Court jurisdiction over family offenses by a respondent against a “member of the same family or household.”  The legislature, in 2008, expanded the definition of “member of the same family or household” to include “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time.”  Respondent fit within that expanded definition:

The daughter testified that she and respondent had been classmates since kindergarten and began a “boyfriend-girlfriend” relationship in fifth grade that continued, on and off, through eighth grade. At first, the relationship consisted of holding hands, kissing and exchanging texts and phone calls. By sixth grade, according to the daughter, respondent was texting or calling her 5 or 10 times daily and becoming jealous, “controlling” and “isolat[ing].” The daughter testified that she and respondent had some sexual contact in sixth grade, including an incident in which he allegedly caused her to touch his erect penis at school in the presence of other students, and another in which he put his hand down her shirt to touch her breasts without her permission. According to the daughter, she and respondent did not date for most of seventh grade. However, late in that year they began talking again, and in eighth grade they met twice, each time at respondent’s request. The daughter testified that during the first encounter, she reluctantly acceded to respondent’s request for oral sex, believing that he would “leave [her] alone” if she did so. When they met the second time, they had sexual intercourse; the daughter testified that she asked respondent to stop and that he complied at first, but then continued. The daughter distanced herself from respondent after these events, and reported them to petitioner after she began having suicidal thoughts… . Matter of Samantha L v Luis J, 2014 NY Slip Op 08073, 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