You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

A Retired Police Officer’s Personnel Records, Including Records of Misconduct, Are Exempt from the Freedom of Information Law

The Third Department noted that records of personnel records of a police officer, including records of misconduct, are exempt from the Freedom of Information Law pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, and the exemption extends to retired police officers:

An agency may properly deny access to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by state statute (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]). As is relevant here, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) provides that “[a]ll personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency or department . . .[,] shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order.” Personnel records include documents relating to misconduct or rule violations by police officers … . Thus, if a document relating to an officer’s public employment may be used “in litigation to harass, embarrass, degrade or impeach [that] officer’s integrity,” then it is protected by Civil Rights Law § 50-a … .

Inasmuch as this Court has expressly ruled that a police officer’s personnel records continue to be exempt from disclosure after he or she departs from public service, we disagree with petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred by concluding that Civil Rights Law § 50-a applies to the records of [the officer] as a retired police officer … . Whether an officer “is no longer employed by [an agency] has no bearing upon the question of whether the requested records were or were not used by [that agency] to evaluate his [or her] performance” … . Matter of Columbia-Greene Beauty School Inc v City of Albany, 2014 NY Slip Op 07233, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

,

Order Re: an Easement Allowing Plaintiffs Access to a Lake Was Specific Enough to Support Finding the Defendants in Civil Contempt (for Violation of the Order)—Willfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt—Mere Act of Disobedience Is Enough

The Third Department determined the defendants were properly found to be in contempt of an order concerning plaintiffs’ easement for access to a lake.  The court explained that the order was specific enough to justify the contempt finding and further explained that willfulness is not an element of civil contempt:

…[D]efendants thus contend that they were not prohibited from partially fencing the passageway or placing other property on it, provided that plaintiffs’ reasonable right of passage was not impaired … . However, the rule relied upon by defendants applies to rights-of-way that are not specifically defined or bounded by the language of the grant … . Here, the 2010 order determined that the deeds granted plaintiffs a defined 60-foot-wide easement and right-of-way consisting of the passageway, and that plaintiffs further possessed rights to construct, maintain and use a dock … . The 2010 order also expressly directed defendants to keep the passageway “free of all brush and tall grasses, junk boats, debris, and other personal property” that interfered or could interfere with plaintiffs’ rights, and to maintain the passageway in an unobstructed fashion. Defendants raised no factual challenge to plaintiffs’ claim that the fencing was partially obstructing the passageway, that they had permitted tall grass and brush to grow, and that they had allowed the accumulation of personal property and debris upon the passageway. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly found that they violated a clear and unequivocal mandate in these respects … .

Although the 2010 order did not specify the precise location where plaintiffs were to construct their dock, it did direct defendants not to interfere with plaintiffs’ right to construct and use a dock “within the northerly extensions” of the passageway. Plaintiffs submitted a survey map and other evidence demonstrating that defendants had placed their dock in the center of the passageway in such a manner that insufficient space was left in the northerly end for plaintiffs to position or use a dock without infringing on the rights of a neighboring landowner. * * *

We reject defendants’ claim that the contempt finding was improper in that they allegedly believed their actions were justified and, thus, were not willfully disobedient. No finding of willfulness or deliberate disregard is required to sustain a civil contempt determination; “the mere act of disobedience, regardless of motive, is sufficient . . . if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party”… . Hush v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 07231, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

In a Slip and Fall Case, Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether a Defect in a Concrete Slab Was More than “Trivial”—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined a slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the chip in a concrete slab was more than a trivial, nonactionable, defect:

Generally, whether a condition is dangerous or merely a nonactionable, trivial defect is a factual question for a jury to resolve … . An owner will not be liable, however, for “‘negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance,'” which may cause “‘a pedestrian [to] merely stumble, stub his [or her] toes, or trip over a raised projection'” … . Accordingly, it is sometimes appropriate, after “consideration of such relevant factors as the dimensions of the alleged defect . . ., including [its] width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance . . .[,] as well as the time, place, and circumstances of the injury” … to conclude as a matter of law that a defect is too trivial to be actionable … . * * *

Under these circumstances, and upon review of the color photographs of the defect, we conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the chip in the edge of the curb was a trivial defect … . In response to defendants’ prima facie showing, plaintiffs were obligated to submit “evidence to establish that the alleged defect has the characteristics of a trap, snare or nuisance” … . Given the undisputed circumstances of plaintiff’s fall, her attorney’s affirmation, which was of no probative value, was an insufficient response to defendants’ prima facie showing … . Gillis v Herzog Supply Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07220, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, , ,

Where Jail Time Is Contemplated as Punishment for Disobeying an Order of Protection, the Standard of Proof for Willful Contempt is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lahtinen, determined that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied in a contempt proceeding where jail time was imposed as a punishment for disobeying an order of protection.  The court held the proof met the standard, but sentenced the respondent to time-served (11 days):

Case law has not been consistent regarding the level of proof when considering an alleged willful violation of a protective order … . This inconsistency may be due in part to the statutory silence as to the quantum of proof (see Family Ct Act § 846-a [stating that the court must be satisfied by “competent proof”]), as well as the fact that, like other statutes implicating contempt, a Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding can involve civil contempt, criminal contempt or both. Criminal and civil contempt have different levels of proof as “criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas “civil contempt . . . must be proven by clear and convincing evidence” … .

Where, as here, a person who has violated an order of protection is incarcerated as a punitive remedy for a definite period — with no avenue to shorten the term by acts that extinguish the contempt — then that aspect of the Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding “is one involving criminal contempt [and] [t]he standard of proof that must be met to establish that the individual willfully violated the court’s order is beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Matter of Stuart LL v Aimee KL, 2014 NY Slip Op 07222, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner Had No Duty to Take Measures to Protect Against the Attack—Evidence Lodge Is Located in a “High Crime” Area Insufficient to Render Such an Attack Foreseeable

The Third Department determined the landowner did not have a duty to take measures to protect plaintiff who was assaulted and stabbed after leaving defendant’s fraternal lodge, even though there was evidence the lodge was located in a “high crime” area.  The evidence of prior crimes at the premises was not sufficient to render the attack on plaintiff foreseeable:

Landowners have a duty of reasonable care to maintain their property in a safe condition; although they “have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety” … . Notably, “even where there is an extensive history of criminal conduct on the premises, the landowner cannot be held to a duty to take protective measures unless it is shown that he or she either knows or has reason to know from past experience that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor” … . “The scope of the duty varies with the foreseeability of the potential harm” … . Stated another way, “no duty is imposed to protect . . . against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” …, and “landowners have a duty to control third persons only when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Prior crimes need not be identical to a present crime in order to put a landowner on notice; “the inquiry of foreseeability depends upon the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question” … . Finally, although foreseeability is generally an issue to be resolved by the factfinder, it may be determined as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and permit only one inference to be drawn therefrom … . Milton v IBPOE The World Forest city Lodge, #180, 2014 NY Slip Op 07242, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

,

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

 

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