You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

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

 

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

 

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

 

,

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

 

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