You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Claimant Excluded from Eligibility for Unemployment Insurance Benefits by Labor Law 565 (Re: Major Policymaking or Advisory Positions)

The Third Department upheld the Unemployment Insurance Board’s determination that claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits by virtue of a statutory exclusion (Labor Law 565) for persons holding a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position:

For purposes of determining a claimant’s eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) excludes from employment “services rendered for a governmental entity by . . . a person in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position.” Whether this exclusion applies presents a mixed question of law and fact, and the Board’s determination in this regard will be upheld if it has a rational basis … .

Here, claimant’s position had three primary functions: (1) to investigate patterns of discrimination involving violations of the Human Rights Law appropriate for filing an administrative complaint by DHR, (2) to oversee the prosecution of complaints brought on behalf of individuals, and (3) to evaluate DHR’s [Division of Human Rights’] issuance of exemptions for certain housing providers. In addition, claimant was a member of the stimulus oversight team responsible for ensuring that stimulus funds were distributed in a nondiscriminatory manner. In performing his duties, claimant reported directly to the Commissioner of Human Rights, had meetings with the Commissioner on a variety of matters and made recommendations on the implementation of agency policies. In addition, he represented the DHR in its dealings with other agencies while a member of the stimulus oversight team and devised a system for gathering accurate information concerning expenditures made in connection therewith. Although claimant did not independently establish agency policy, he was involved in the process and his advice was solicited by the Commissioner. Under these circumstances, there is a rational basis for the Board’s decision that claimant held a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position excluded under Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) … . Matter of Birnbaum…, 2014 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 11-13-14

 

Retroactive Suspension of Child Support Payments Based On Interference With Payor’s Parental Rights Proper

In a lengthy and complex decision which addressed the proper allocation of marital and separate property, including the application of credits for the contribution of separate property to marital assets, the Third Department determined that child support payments can be suspended retroactively based upon interference with the payor’s parental relationship.  In a concurring decision, two justices expressed their concern that the availability of retroactive suspension of child support would lead to self-help, i.e., the unilateral suspension of payments without a court order.  To avoid that circumstance, the concurring justices suggested that child support payments be made to an escrow account pending a decision on the application to cease the payments (as was done in this case).  From the concurring decision:

While we agree with the result reached by the majority, we are compelled to voice our concerns regarding the practical effect of, and policy considerations surrounding, the retroactive suspension of a noncustodial parent’s obligation to pay child support. According to the longstanding jurisprudence of this Court, in certain circumstances, such as here, in which a custodial parent interferes with the parental rights of the noncustodial parent, a court may suspend the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation retroactive to the date an application for such suspension was made … . While we interpret the relevant statutes as prohibiting the child support payor from unilaterally discontinuing his or her payments during the pendency of a suspension application in the absence of a court order permitting such action, we are concerned that our previous decisions — and, to a certain extent, the majority decision here — which apply a suspension of child support retroactively, could actually promote such self-help. We, therefore, write separately to advocate for clarification and/or a modification of our precedent on this issue. * * *

…[W]e are of the view that a retroactive suspension of child support payments is appropriate only where, as here, the child support payor has, with court authorization, either paid child support into an escrow account or has obtained a temporary court order suspending payments during the pendency of the suspension application. In our opinion, requiring that child support payments be made in escrow is preferable, as it ensures that the noncustodial parent fulfills his or her child support obligations if the case is ultimately decided in favor of the custodial parent, while also making certain that the financial support is readily available for court-directed withdrawals, if necessary, for the custodial parent to meet the needs of the children … . If, on the other hand, the noncustodial parent prevails, a subsequent suspension of child support can truly be retroactive and allow for the return of monies paid into the escrow account without violating the public policy against recoupment and without encouraging the accrual of arrears. Whitaker v Case, 2014 NY Slip Op 07707, 3rd Dept 11-13-14

 

,

Real Estate Broker Not an Employee of Commercial Real Estate Firm

The Third Department upheld the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant, a real estate broker, was not an employee of a commercial real estate firm (Optimal):

It is well settled that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . The pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with control over the latter being more important … .

Evidence was presented that claimant was paid a commission of 60% of the brokerage fee collected by Optimal, which she negotiated with Optimal’s senior managing director. Moreover, claimant did not have an established work schedule or work location, independently maintained her own real estate license, carried her own business cards and was permitted to and did receive commissions on referrals from other parties. Notably, she was not required to report to anyone at Optimal nor was she required to accept leads that Optimal sent to her. In view of the foregoing, while we are unable to conclude, as a matter of law that no employment relationship exists (see Labor Law § 511 [19]), substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Optimal did not exercise sufficient control over claimant’s work to be deemed her employer … . Matter of Spielberger…, 2014 Slip Op 07564, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

Unexcused Late Disclaimer of Coverage Invalid and Unenforceable

The Third Department determined the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was invalid and uneforceable because it was inexcusably late.  The court noted that a “reservation of rights letter” does not constitute a disclaimer:

An insurer’s decision to disclaim liability insurance coverage must be given to the insured, in writing, as soon as is reasonably practicable, “failing which the disclaimer or denial will be ineffective” (… see Insurance Law § 3420 [d] [2]…). While the timeliness of an insurer’s notice of disclaimer generally raises an issue of fact for a jury to decide, where, as here, the basis for a disclaimer “was or should have been readily apparent before the onset of the delay,” the delay will be found to be unreasonable as a matter of law … . “Reasonableness of delay is measured from the time when the insurer learns of sufficient facts upon which to base the disclaimer” … . * * *

Even after receiving the attorney’s summary, which ostensibly equipped it with sufficient facts to issue a written disclaimer, plaintiff instead sent defendant a reservation of rights letter, which does not serve as “a substitute for the required notice of disclaimer” … . Vermont Mut Ins Co v Mowery Constr Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07537, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

Employer Took Responsibility for Transporting Claimant Home After Cancellation of Work Due to a Storm—Injury During Ride Home Compensable

The Third Department affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that plaintiff was injured on the job.  A snowstorm forced the cancellation of work and the employer took responsibility for getting the claimant home.  Because the van used to transport claimant had no seats, claimant injured her spine during the trip:

Generally, travel to and from the place of employment is not considered to be within the scope of employment and, thus, injuries sustained during that period are not compensable … . However, an exception arises when the employer takes responsibility for transporting employees, particularly where the employer is in exclusive control of the means of conveyance … . The key determination in establishing compensability is whether there is “some nexus between the accident and the employment” … . Here, it is undisputed that the employer furnished the van for transportation, one of claimant’s supervisors was the driver and, further, claimant’s injuries were sustained during the course of that transportation while she was still on the clock and being paid. Inasmuch as the employer took responsibility for the inherent risks of transporting its employees from the work site and had exclusive control of the conveyance, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s determination that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment … . Matter of Noboa v International Shoppes Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07540, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

Where an Injured Worker Remains Attached to the Work Force After Injury, the Measure of Benefits Is the Difference Between Actual Earnings Before and After Injury and Cannot Be Based On Evidence of What the Worker Could Be Earning

The Third Department determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board correctly calculated the benefits to which claimant was entitled based upon her actual earnings in her new job in a delicatessen, as opposed to the amount her employer argued she was capable of earning.  Claimant was a nurse’s aid who injured her back while working in a nursing home:

Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that she had a permanent partial disability and calculated her weekly compensation rate — i.e., two thirds of the difference between what her average weekly wage would be absent injury and her current wage-earning capacity (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w]), as measured by her degree of disability. Upon claimant’s application for review, the Workers’ Compensation Board increased claimant’s degree of disability and concluded that her wage loss benefits should be based upon her actual reduced earnings from the delicatessen where she now works, as opposed to her degree of disability, and adjusted her weekly awards accordingly. …

“[B]efore awarding wage replacement benefits in a nonschedule permanent partial disability case,” the Board must determine “whether a claimant has maintained a sufficient attachment to the labor market” … — i.e., that the claimant’s “reduced earning capacity is due to the disability, not . . . factors unrelated to the disability” (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), such as “‘age, [or] general economic conditions'” … . Once it is determined that a claimant’s reduced earning capacity remains involuntary and related to his or her permanent partial disability, “[t]he wage earning capacity of an injured employee . . . shall be determined by his [or her] actual earnings” while disabled (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5-a]…). In that regard, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly explained that, for claimants who have demonstrated that they remained attached to the labor market, “where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period”… . Matter of Gioia v Cattaraugus County Nursing Home, 2014 NY Slip Op 07535, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

, ,

Appeal Board Was Bound by Arbitrator’s Findings of Fact Re: Employee’s Serious Safety-Rule Violations

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board after the Board determined petitioner should not have been terminated for rule violations.  Pursuant to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator had made factual findings re: serious rule violations.  The Third Department explained that the Board was bound by those factual findings:

[“While the Board was free to make ‘independent additional factual findings’ and draw its own independent conclusion as to whether claimant’s behavior rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct for purposes of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, it was also bound by the [arbitrator’s] ‘factual findings regarding claimant’s conduct and [her] conclusion’ that claimant had” committed serious violations of safety rules … . The arbitrator here found that claimant had committed grave violations of the employer’s policies that had endangered the safety of his passengers, violations that were rendered even more egregious by the fact that he had previously been disciplined for similar conduct. The Board, in contrast, inexplicably found that claimant had “substantially complied with” the employer’s policies and made no effort to consider claimant’s behavior within the context of his prior disciplinary history. Thus, as the Board improperly contradicted factual findings of the arbitrator, remittal is necessary for it to “reconsider[] upon appropriate findings” … . Matter of Boretsky …, 2014 NY Slip Op 07414, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Criteria for Court Review of Agency Action Explained

In affirming the town’s approval of a subdivision plan, the Third Department explained its review powers:

…”[i]t is not the province of the courts to second-guess thoughtful agency decisionmaking and, accordingly, an agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence” … . Moreover, “[w]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives” … . Matter of Dugan v Liggan, 2014 NY Slip Op 07404, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

Summary Judgment Admitting Will to Probate Appropriate Where Objections to the Will (“Testamentary Capacity” and “Undue Influence”) Not Supported

The Third Department determined summary judgment admitting the will to probate was appropriately granted where the “testamentary capacity” and “undue influence” objections were not supported by evidence:

“Whether to dismiss a party’s objections and admit the challenged will to probate is a matter committed to the sound discretion of Surrogate’s Court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the court’s decision will not be disturbed” … . While rare, summary judgment in a contested probate proceeding is appropriate where a petitioner establishes a prima facie case for probate and the objectant does not raise any factual issues regarding testamentary capacity, execution of the will, undue influence or fraud … . Upon our review of the record, we find that respondent has raised no such issues and we, therefore, conclude that Surrogate’s Court properly awarded summary judgment to petitioner.

As to testamentary capacity, petitioner bore the initial burden of establishing that decedent understood the nature and consequences of making the will, the nature and extent of her property, and the natural objects of her bounty … . Notably, it was only necessary to demonstrate that decedent had “a general, rather than a precise, knowledge of the assets in . . . her estate” … .  * * *

…[T]he fact that a decedent was subject to undue influence is established when he or she “‘was actually constrained to act against [his or her] own free will and desire by identifying the motive, opportunity and acts allegedly constituting the influence, as well as when and where such acts occurred'” … . Here, notwithstanding the confidential relationship between decedent and petitioner …, the record is bereft of any direct or circumstantial evidence indicating that petitioner exercised undue influence over decedent … . “On the contrary, [the evidence] indicate[s] that the will was the product of the free and unfettered act of [decedent]” … . Matter of Vosilla, 2014 NY Slip Op 07417, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

To Maintain Standing to Bring a Derivative Action Against a Not-for-Profit Corporation At Least Five Percent of the Members Must Be Plaintiffs at All Times As the Suit Progresses

The Third Department determined that in order to maintain standing for a derivative action against a not-for-profit corporation the plaintiffs must constitute five percent of the members at all times. In this case, the five percent requirement was met when lawsuit began but subsequently a member left and the five percent requirement was thereby no longer met:

N-PCL 623 is derived from the Business Corporation Law, but it is different in that it does not require ownership at the time of the transaction and does not allow plaintiffs to post security for expenses if they do not meet the five percent requirement (compare N-PCL 623, with Business Corporation Law §§ 626, 627). The requirement that plaintiffs in a derivative action against a not-for-profit corporation consist of at least five percent of any class of members was “necessitated by the elimination from the new law of the ‘security for expenses’ provision embodied in [Business Corporation Law § 627]” (Mem of Joint Legislative Committee to Study Revision of Corporation Laws, 1969 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 2485; see L 1969, ch 1066; see also E. Lisk Wyckoff, Jr., Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 37, N-PCL 623). Because the N-PCL specifically eliminated the ability of less than five percent of shareholders to continue an action by posting security for expenses, we conclude that the ownership requirement of N-PCL 623 (a) must continue throughout the action in order to maintain standing … . Pall v McKenzie Homeowners’ Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07392, 3rd Dept 10-3014

 

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