You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Elements of Florida “Theft” Statute and New York Larceny Statutes Are Different—Florida Conviction Cannot Serve as a Predicate Felony in New York

The Third Department, using its “interest of justice” review power, determined defendant’s Florida conviction could not serve as a predicate felony in New York because the relevant Florida statute included an element not included in the relevant New York statute:

Here, the information contained with the second felony offender notice indicates that, in 2001, defendant was convicted in Florida of a felony “theft” in the third degree (see Fla Stat Ann § 812.014). Under the applicable Florida penal statute, it is a crime to “knowingly obtain[] or use[], or endeavor[] to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently . . . [d]eprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property . . . [or a]ppropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property” (Fla Stat Ann § 812.014 [1] [a], [b] [emphasis added]). In comparison, New York’s larceny statutes do not contain analogous language with regard to mere temporary deprivations or appropriations (see Penal Law §§ 155.00 [3], [4]; 155.05 [1]…). Thus, the Florida crime undoubtedly contains an element that is not included in New York’s larceny offenses and, as a result, the Florida conviction is not sufficiently analogous to a New York felony to serve as a predicate felony for purposes of Penal Law § 70.06 … . People v Parker, 2014 NY Slip Op 07021, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable Based Upon Right to Enter Premises to Make Repairs But May Be Liable as the Creator of the Dangerous Condition

In a case stemming from a fall from an allegedly defective ladder that was installed to gain access to a loft, the Third Department determined that an out-of-possession landlord was not liable based on a contractual reservation of the right to enter the premises to make repairs, but a question of fact had been raised about whether the out-of-possession landlord created the dangerous condition:

…[D]efendants were entitled to summary judgment as to the question of whether they were liable for plaintiff’s injuries based upon the provision in the lease retaining their right to enter the premises to make repairs. While a landlord who retains the right to enter the leased property to make repairs may be liable to injuries to third parties …, “only a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision will support imposition of liability against the landlord” … . Here, plaintiff’s expert opined that the condition of the ladder violated regulations found in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (see 19 NYCRR 1219.1), the New York State Building Code and the Property Maintenance Code of New York. However, inasmuch as a violation of a regulation is insufficient to impose liability on an out-of-possession landlord pursuant to a reserved right to enter the premises …, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

We reach a different conclusion, however, as to whether defendants created the dangerous condition. Liability to a lessee’s employee for personal injuries may attach if the out-of-possession landlord affirmatively created the dangerous condition … . Although the former tenant hired an architect to design the plans for the premises, including the loft area and access ladder, defendants contracted and paid for the construction. Further, the record reflects that defendants took an active role in the construction project. Defendants and the tenant agreed to make changes to the architectural plans in order to cut costs, including changes to the design of the loft. While the architectural plan called for the ladder to be “mechanically fasten[ed] to surface of floor slab and at top edge to wood platform,” plaintiff’s expert opined, based upon his inspection of the site of the alleged accident, that the right stringer of the ladder was secured by three screws to an adjacent wall, not to the wood platform, and that the left stringer was not secured to the upper landing at all. Further, there was no evidence that the ladder was secured to the floor slab. Inasmuch as plaintiff contends that her fall was caused by the ladder shifting away from the loft, causing her to lose her balance, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to her, we find a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the ladder was constructed negligently and as to whether defendants created the dangerous condition … . Boice v PCK Dev Co LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07042, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Although Title Had Not Yet Formally Passed to the Driver/Owner, the Vehicle Was Covered as a “Newly Acquired” Vehicle Under the Terms of the Policy

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the insurer could not disclaim coverage of a 1987 Dodge driven by Porter under the terms of the policy.  Porter was driving the vehicle before receiving the title documents from the seller, Elmore:

We consider first whether coverage extended to the 1987 Dodge under the provision for “[a] private passenger auto newly acquired by you.” [The insurer] contended, and Supreme Court held, that this provision did not apply because Porter had not yet received title or registered the Dodge under the Uniform Vehicle Certificate of Title Act (see Vehicle and Traffic Law art 46). The term “newly acquired” is not defined in the policy and, importantly, it is not limited by the policy to completed transactions that were done in full compliance with the Certificate of Title Act. Ownership of a motor vehicle generally passes “when the parties intend that it pass” … .

Here, it is undisputed that, during the month before the accident, Porter had disposed of his 1994 Chevrolet truck and, shortly thereafter, replaced it by trading his ATV (which he had recently purchased for $1,000) to Elmore for the 1987 Dodge. Although Elmore apparently indicated to Porter after the accident that the Dodge was actually owned by his girlfriend’s father, there was no indication that Elmore did not have authority from the owner to make the transaction. At the time of the transaction, Elmore took possession of the ATV and likewise Porter took absolute possession and control of the Dodge, including all of the keys. According to Porter, the trade was final and permanent. Porter testified that Elmore was about to produce documents so he could register the Dodge, but the accident occurred the day before Elmore was going to give him the documents. Nonetheless, upon taking physical possession of the Dodge, Porter had placed the plates from his junked truck on the Dodge and began using it to drive to work. Under the circumstances and considering the pertinent policy language in light of “the reasonable expectations of the average insured” …, the 1987 Dodge fell within the meaning of replacement auto newly acquired by Porter at the time of the accident and, accordingly, was covered under plaintiff’s policy. Nationwide Ins Co of Am v Porter, 2014 NY Slip Op 07029, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Out-of-State Dismissal with Prejudice Barred Similar New York Action Under Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Third Department determined that an Alabama paternity proceeding brought by the mother against the respondent, which was dismissed with prejudice, barred the paternity proceeding brought by the mother in New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  The court explained the “res judicata” principles:

“In New York, res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars successive litigation based upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if: (i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party to the previous action [or proceeding], or in privity with a party who was” … .

Here, there is no dispute that the Alabama proceeding involved the same parties and underlying issues, i.e., paternity and child support. Additionally, under both Alabama and New York law, a dismissal “with prejudice” indeed constitutes an adjudication “on the merits”…. . Matter of Starla D v Jeremy E, 2014 NY Slip Op 07033, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid—Failure to Afford Defendant His Right to Counsel Prior To and During Grand Jury Proceedings Required Dismissal of the Indictment—“Guilty-Plea” Forfeiture Rule Did Not Apply

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, finding that the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and the defendant had been deprived of his right to counsel with respect to whether to testify before the grand jury:

A trial court must ensure that a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is knowing, intelligent and voluntary … . After the People informed County Court that defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal, the court asked defendant whether that contention was accurate, to which defendant replied affirmatively. Thereafter, the court questioned defendant about his understanding of the terms of the plea bargain, but failed to confirm that he fully understood that his waiver of appeal was not automatic and that it was, in fact, “separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” … . Defendant signed a written waiver of appeal outside of court and County Court made no inquiry about “the circumstances surrounding the document’s execution” or confirm that defendant had been fully advised by counsel of the document’s significance … . As such, the appeal waiver was invalid … .

On the merits of defendant’s appeal, a criminal defendant’s right to receive the assistance of counsel attaches at arraignment “and entails the presence of counsel at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings” … . Further, whether an accused individual facing felony charges should elect to appear before and present evidence to the grand jury or, as equally relevant here, object to the timeliness or reasonableness of the notice of grand jury proceedings, raises questions necessitating consultation with legal counsel … . The People correctly observe that, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied the statutory right to testify before the grand jury … or, as defendant now argues on appeal, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where, as here, such assertion does not relate to the voluntariness of the plea or the integrity of the plea bargaining process … . Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied … . Further, we observe that, while defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment was based solely on the denial of his right pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to testify before the grand jury, the “claimed deprivation of the [s]tate constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved” before County Court … . Inasmuch as defendant was not afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel “and make an informed decision as to whether to appear before the [g]rand [j]ury”…, the resulting deprivation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel requires the dismissal of the indictment … . People v Chappelle, 2014 NY Slip Op 07014, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Where a School District Employee’s Job Is Eliminated Due to a Transfer of Function, the Procedure Mandated by Civil Service Law Section 70 Must Be Completed Before the Four-Month Statute of Limitations (for an Action Seeking Reinstatement) Starts Running

The Third Department determined the procedure mandated by Civil Service Law section 70 applied to a school district’s decision to cease its own data management services and purchase the services from BOCES.  Petitioner was employed by the district in data management.  The court held that the four-month statute of limitations for the employee’s action seeking reinstatement did not start until the Civil Service Law section 70 procedures had been followed:

Civil Service Law § 70 (2) applies “[u]pon the transfer of a function” from the District to BOCES (Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [first sentence][FN3]). The District’s decision to cease providing its own data management services and purchase such services from BOCES constituted the “transfer of a function” within the meaning of the statute … . The statute required the District, not less than 20 days before any such transfer, to certify to BOCES a list of the names and titles of all District employees who were “substantially engaged in the performance of the function to be transferred” and to publicly post that list along with a copy of the statute (Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [second sentence]). All District employees could then, before the effective date of such transfer, give written notice of protest to BOCES and the District of their “inclusion in or exclusion from such list” (Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [third sentence]). The head of BOCES would be required, within 10 days of receiving a protest, to review the protest, consult with the District and notify the employee of the determination regarding such protest (see Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [fourth sentence]). “Such determination shall be a final administrative determination” (Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [fifth sentence]). Respondents would then be required to determine which employees on the list were necessary to be transferred, by considering statutory criteria as well as whether BOCES had sufficient staff to provide the transferred services (see Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [first and eighth sentences]…). Employees who were not transferred would be placed on a preferred hire list for similar positions at both the District and BOCES (see Civil Service Law § 70 [2] [eleventh sentence]).

* * * Ignoring the statutory procedure would deprive public employees of the protection of the statute and reward public employers by giving them the advantage of a shorter statute of limitations for challenges when they fail to perform their statutory obligations. This we cannot countenance.

In transfer cases, the statute of limitations begins to run after the transferee agency rules against a protest to include an employee on the certified list or declines to transfer an employee who is on the list. Matter of Thornton v Saugerties Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07046, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Spontaneous Statements Made After Request for Counsel Properly Admitted—911 Call Properly Admitted as an Excited Utterance

The Third Department determined statements made spontaneously to the police after the defendant requested counsel were properly admitted and a 911 call made by the burglary victim was properly admitted as an excited utterance:

As defendant requested counsel after being advised of his Miranda rights at the police station, any further police questioning was precluded … . However, “[n]otwithstanding this rule, statements made by a defendant who has invoked the right to counsel may nevertheless be admissible at trial if they were made spontaneously ” … . Here, we agree with County Court that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that, following his request for counsel, defendant’s statements were not “the result of express questioning or its functional equivalent” … . That is, his statements to that point were “neither induced, provoked nor encouraged by the actions of the police officers” in simply bringing the girlfriend into the booking room, an action consistent with their routine procedure … . * * *

Next, defendant argues that County Court erred in admitting into evidence a redacted recording of the victim’s 911 call as an excited utterance, because her call was made after she had time for reflection. “An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance [hearsay] exception when made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication” … . “Among the factors to be considered in determining whether . . . a statement is admissible [are] the nature of the startling event[,] the amount of time which has elapsed between the [startling] occurrence and the statement[,] and the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth” …, although “the time for reflection is not measured in minutes or seconds, but rather is measured by facts” … .

Here, the victim testified that, although she had followed defendant’s car and had spoken with him, it was only after she returned home that she discovered that her home had been broken into and her television was missing, and she called 911 “right away.” In the 911 call, the obviously distressed victim exclaimed, “I was just robbed,” and explained her contact with defendant. As County Court correctly found, being the victim of a burglary is “a startling event” and the victim’s call was made “under the stress and excitement of a startling event and [was] not the product of any reflection and possible fabrication” … . People v Haskins, 2014 NY Slip Op 07019, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Denial of Request that Judge Recuse Himself Must Be Addressed On Direct Appeal, Not Via an Article 78 Proceeding

The Third Department explained that the denial of a request that a judge recuse himself from presiding over a particular matter could not be addressed via an Article 78 proceeding, but rather could only be addressed on direct appeal:

A CPLR article 78 proceeding is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking review of issues that could be raised upon a direct appeal …, including the denial of a party’s request that a judge recuse himself or herself from presiding over a particular matter … . Rather, petitioners’ remedy — at that point in time — was to either reduce respondent’s bench decision on the recusal motion to a written order, serve a copy of that order and the corresponding notice of entry … and timely file an appeal therefrom … or, alternatively, await decision on the underlying summary judgment motions and, if aggrieved thereby, challenge the denial of their recusal motion upon a direct appeal from that order … . Matter of Concord Assoc LP v LaBuda, 2014 NY Slip Op 07052, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Assignment of New Counsel and Adjournment of Trial Over Defendant’s Objection Was Proper—Defense Counsel Had Represented the Confidential Informant in the Past—District Attorney Objected to Preclusion of Confidential Informant’s Testimony as a Solution

The Third Department determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered, over defendant’s objection, the assignment of new counsel because of a conflict of interest.  Assigned counsel had represented the confidential informant (CI).  The court was faced with either assigning new counsel or ruling that the CI could not testify:

County Court did not abuse its discretion in substituting assigned counsel against defendant’s wishes … . A criminal defendant’s right to counsel of his or her choice is not absolute and may properly be circumscribed where defense counsel’s continued representation of the defendant would present a conflict of interest … . Here, upon learning of the CI’s identity,[FN2] defendant’s original assigned attorney informed the court that he possessed confidential information from his prior representation of the CI that would affect his ability to cross-examine that witness, thereby establishing the existence of an actual conflict of interest … . Faced with “the dilemma of having to choose between undesirable alternatives” in addressing the conflict …, County Court’s decision to assign new counsel and adjourn the trial rather than preclude the testimony of the CI altogether constituted a proper exercise of its broad discretion under the circumstances presented … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 07018, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Bank’s Failure to Strictly Comply With the Filing Deadline in RPAPL 1306 Required Dismissal of the Complaint Seeking Foreclosure

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the Third Department determined that the bank’s failure to submit admissible proof of compliance with the service requirements of RPAPL 1304 precluded summary judgment, and the bank’s unexplained failure to comply with the filing deadline in RPAPL 1306 required dismissal of the complaint seeking foreclosure:

Defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1306. That statute provides that lenders “shall file with the superintendent of financial services (superintendent) within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by [RPAPL 1304]” a form containing certain information regarding the borrower and mortgage (RPAPL 1306 [1]; see RPAPL 1306 [2]). The statute further states that “[a]ny complaint served in [an action] initiated pursuant to [RPAPL article 13] shall contain, as a condition precedent to such [action], an affirmative allegation that at the time the [action] is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section” (RPAPL 1306 [1]). * * *

RPAPL 1306’s condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action is strict compliance with the first sentence of the statute. In other words, a lender has only complied with the condition precedent if the lender has filed the appropriate form with the superintendent within three days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower. TD Bank NA v Leroy, 2014 NY Slip Op 07047, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

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