You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Injury Caused by Dog’s Rambunctious Behavior Not Actionable

Plaintiff was injured when a dog, Heidi, jumped off a hammock causing plaintiff to fall from the hammock.  In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, the Third Department explained the relevant strict liability criteria (no negligence cause of action lies for injuries caused by a dog):

There is no cause of action in negligence as against the owner of a dog who causes injury, but one may assert a claim in strict liability against a dog owner for harm caused by the dog’s vicious propensities when the owner knew or should have known of those propensities … . A vicious propensity in this context need not involve any ferocious or aggressive behavior, but has instead been defined as “a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, so long as such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” … . However, “normal canine behavior” does not establish vicious propensities, and “rambunctious behavior will show awareness of a vicious propensity only if it is the very behavior that resulted in [a] plaintiff’s injury” … . Clark v Heaps, 2014 NY Slip Op 07239, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, ,

“But For” Causation Element of Tortious Interference with Contract and Prospective Business Relationship Not Present—Notwithstanding the Actions of the Defendants, there Was Evidence the Contract Was Cancelled for Financial Reasons

The Third Department, in finding the causes of action should have been dismissed, explained the “but for” element of tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective business relationships.  The complaint alleged that defendants made disparaging and false remarks about the plaintiff which caused plaintiff to lose a consulting contract.  However the evidence demonstrated the contract was cancelled for financial reasons.  Therefore the “but for” element was not present:

Causation is an essential element of a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Such a cause of action requires proof that, “but for” the defendants’ conduct, the plaintiff would not have breached its contract with a third party … .

In opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs submitted a letter — not previously disclosed during discovery —… . * * * This letter established that, regardless of whether defendants acted in such a manner as to interfere with the consulting contract, the contract … was terminated for financial reasons … . Thus, it cannot be shown that “but for” defendants’ alleged interference, plaintiffs’ contractual relationship … would have continued … . Ullmanglass v Oneida Ltd, 2014 NY Slip Op 07234, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, ,

Elements of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Explained

In reversing the pre-answer dismissal of a malicious prosecution cause of action and affirming the dismissal on an abuse of process cause of action, the Third Department explained the elements of both:

…[W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action. The elements of such a claim are “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” … . As is particularly relevant here, “[i]n order for a civilian complainant to be considered to have initiated a criminal proceeding, ‘it must be shown that [the complainant] played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act'” … .  * * *

With respect to the abuse of process claim, the three essential elements are “(1) regularly issued process, either civil or criminal, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective” … . In general, such a claim “will only lie for improperly using process after it is issued” …, and a malicious motive alone is insufficient to give rise to a cause of action to recover for abuse of process … . Here, plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint pertaining to this cause of action, even construed liberally, fail to allege that defendant actually used process improperly — either the order of protection or the arrest warrant — “in a manner inconsistent with the purpose for which it was designed” … . Place v Ciccotelli, 2014 NY Slip Op 07237, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

,

Organizations Representing Lakeshore Residents Should Have Been Allowed to Intervene in an Action Concerning Regulation of Lake Water Levels (Dictated by an 80-Year-Old Injunction)—Neither the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Nor Laches Was a Bar to the Relief Sought by the Lakeshore Residents

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed organizations representing hundreds of lakeshore residents (PLA and Sandy Knolls) to intervene in an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding concerning an 80-year-old injunction re: the operation of a dam to control water levels in the lake.  The court held that the neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel nor laches was a bar to the relief sought by the lakeshore residents:

“Pursuant to CPLR 7802 (d), a court may allow other interested persons to intervene” in proceedings brought against public agencies … . Further, intervention is to be granted as of right in any action or proceeding where a nonparty demonstrates that its interest in the matter is not being duly represented and the nonparty may be “bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012 [a] [2]) or, alternatively, may be permitted by the court “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action [or proceeding] have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013…). * * *

Although requests for leave to intervene invoke a court’s discretionary authority …, the thorough and well-reasoned submissions of the PLA and Sandy Knolls have shown that they have a “‘direct and substantial interest’ in the outcome of this litigation” and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in denying their motions to intervene … . Further, inasmuch as the motions to intervene were filed in the months after Supreme Court issued its order in proceeding No. 1, but before the final judgment was rendered in that proceeding more than a year and one half later, and approximately two years before judgment was entered in proceeding No. 2, we do not agree that denial of the motions on untimeliness grounds was necessitated … . Nor are there any indicia of undue prejudice to petitioners that would warrant the exclusion of the proposed intervenors from the matters . In light of this determination, the argument that the PLA and Sandy Knolls should have been joined as necessary parties has become academic.

Next, we consider Supreme Court’s finding …that collateral estoppel principles precluded respondents from challenging the [injunction]. As a “narrower species of res judicata,” the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from retrying “an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity” … . In this regard, privity is an amorphous term not “susceptible to ease of application” …, and a court’s finding that differing parties are in privity requires consideration of “the character, right and extent of a party’s role in one proceeding as it bears on the intervention of the collateral estoppel doctrine in another” … . * * *[R]espondents were never given “a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling” …, nor were their interests properly represented by [the defendant in the original injunction action], so as to warrant the application of collateral estoppel … . Borst v International Paper Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 07224, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, ,

Surrogate’s Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Attorney’s Fees Greater than Those Called for by the Retainer Agreement—Evidence in Support of “Exceptional Circumstances” Justifying the Higher Fees Not Sufficient—Retainer Agreement Construed in Light Most Favorable to the Client

The Third Department determined Surrogate’s Court erred in awarding attorney’s fees in excess of those agreed to in the retainer agreement between the executors of an estate and the attorney hired to handle the estate.  Although the retainer agreement allowed for increased fees for “extenuating circumstances,” the Third Department found the proof of consultation and approval re: increased fees, required by the retainer agreement, lacking.  The court noted that a retainer agreement is construed in the light most favorable to the client:

Surrogate’s Court abused its discretion in fixing [the estate attorney’s] fee at $50,000. Surrogate’s Court is vested with broad discretion to fix the reasonable compensation of an attorney who renders legal services to a fiduciary of an estate, subject to modification only where that discretion has been abused (see SCPA 2110…). While the court is not bound by a retainer agreement when determining whether an unreasonable fee must be restricted …, a court “cannot award legal fees in excess of what has been agreed to by the parties in a retainer agreement” … . The attorney seeking fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonable value of the services rendered … . * * *

“The general rule that ‘equivocal contracts will be construed against the drafters’ is subject to particularly rigorous enforcement in the context of attorney-client retainer agreements,” such that we must construe the agreement in the light most favorable to the clients … . Matter of Benware, 2014 NY Slip Op 07218, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line) Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination of the location of a boundary line, the Third Department explained the doctrine of “practical location” which is used when the description of the land in deeds is inadequate:

As a general proposition, “[d]eeds and surveys indicate boundary lines by various descriptive elements or ‘calls’ which consist mainly of monuments, courses and distances, adjacent lands and area or quantity” … . Here, however, … our review confirms — that the subject deeds contain no specific bearings or directional calls and set forth only the vaguest description of the intended boundary line between the land originally conveyed to plaintiff and Laight. Indeed, [a surveyor] opined that the deeds in question were “so bad” that a boundary line could not be established absent either a boundary line agreement, which the parties apparently were unable to forge, or judicial intervention … . To that end, where a dispute exists as to the location of a boundary line, “the intent of the parties existing at the time of the original conveyance of the disputed property controls” … . Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period governing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” … . “[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiescence to the boundary by the parties such that it is definitely and equally known, understood and settled” … . Gibbs v Porath, 2014 NY Slip Op 07030, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

In another case, the Third Department found the “practical location” doctrine inapplicable.  Kennedy v Nimons, 2014 NY Slip Op 07036, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted individual defendant’s (Valentino’s) motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 because the evidence did not “utterly refute” plaintiff’s claim he had no notice Valentino was acting as an agent of a disclosed corporate principal when a building contract was executed:

“It is well settled that an individual who signs a contract as an agent for an entity will be held personally liable on the contract if the agency relationship is not disclosed” … . Whether or not a principal is disclosed depends upon whether, at the time of the underlying transaction, the other party to the contract had notice that the agent was acting for a principal and knew of the principal’s identity … .

Here, the contract identified J & J Enterprises as the builder, but there is no reference in the contract or in the accompanying specifications sheet to the status of J & J Enterprises as the trade name of a corporation or to Valentino’s status as an officer or representative of any such corporation.  Winer v Valentino, 2014 NY Slip Op 07050, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating Developmentally Disabled Respondent, Who Had Been In the Care and Custody of the OPWDD Since His Acquittal of a Criminal Charge By Reason of Mental Disease or Defect, Was “Mentally Ill”—Respondent’s Release Was Appropriate

Respondent is mildly developmentally disabled and was committed to the care and custody of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) after acquittal of a criminal charge by reason of mental disease or defect.  The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled respondent could be released to a supervised intermediate care facility subject compliance with a service plan.  The court determined the People did not meet their burden of proving respondent met the relevant statutory definition of “mentally ill,” i.e., the definition which applies to the developmentally disabled:

If the court finds that a person committed pursuant to CPL 330.20 does not have a dangerous mental disorder but is mentally ill, that person must be confined in a nonsecure facility (see CPL 330.20 [12]…). If the court finds that the person is no longer mentally ill, it must release the person with an order of conditions (see CPL 330.20 [12]…). For purposes of CPL 330.20, a person with a developmental disability is considered “mentally ill” if he or she “is in need of care and treatment as a resident in the in-patient services of a developmental center or other residential facility for the . . . developmentally disabled under the jurisdiction of [OPWDD]” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). The DA had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent met the statutory definition of a “mentally ill” person (see CPL 330.20 [12]…]). * * *

…[T]he statute provides a different definition of “mentally ill” for individuals who have developmental disabilities in addition to one or more diagnosed mental disorders (see CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). For those individuals with developmental disabilities, the statute does not require that their judgment be so impaired by a mental illness that they are “unable to understand the need for such care and treatment” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]); this makes sense, as such inability could be related to developmental disabilities as opposed to mental illness. Even if that additional factor applied here, however, respondent acknowledged in his testimony that he needed constant supervision, indicating that he understood the need for care and treatment. While the DA’s expert disagreed that respondent had any such understanding, Supreme Court found respondent credible and did not rely on that expert’s testimony. Thus, even under the definition of mentally ill that applies to individuals without developmental disabilities, the DA did not meet his burden. Matter of Arto ZZ, 2014 NY Slip Op 07053, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

Conspiracy Indictment Which Does Not Charge an Overt Act is Jurisdictionally Defective

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed a conspiracy indictment as jurisdictionally defective because the indictment failed to charge the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy:

In early October 2010, defendant — then serving a sentence in the Otsego County jail on a contempt conviction stemming from various violations of an order of protection in favor of his ex-girlfriend, Jeanette Hamm — allegedly told a fellow prisoner that he desired to have Hamm murdered. Defendant’s block-mate discussed the matter with prison officials, and the Otsego County Sheriff’s Department began an investigation. As part of the investigation, an undercover police officer posing as a potential assassin talked with defendant on the phone and met with him at the jail. Defendant was arrested shortly thereafter and charged by indictment with the crime of conspiracy in the second degree. * * *

As the People concede, the indictment is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed inasmuch as it failed to charge the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy as required by Penal Law § 105.20 … . People v Grays, 2014 NY Slip Op 07017, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Court-Ordered Blood Test Results Should Have Been Suppressed Because the Application Failed to Indicate the Application Was Based Upon Hearsay/Elements of Reckless Driving Explained

The Third Department vacated defendant’s conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated because the application for a court-ordered blood test did not indicate that it was based on hearsay.  In addition, the court, in affirming the defendant’s conviction for reckless driving, explained the elements of that offense. The defendant, who had stopped drinking a few hours before the accident, moved into the oncoming lane and struck the victim’s car head-on (the victim died):

Although an application for a court-ordered blood test may contain hearsay and double hearsay statements that satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the application must disclose that it is supported by hearsay and identify the source or sources of the hearsay” … . Here, the investigator based the application on information provided to him from other officers that defendant had made oral admissions at the scene to operating the vehicle and consuming alcohol, had a reading of .12% blood alcohol content on the Alco-Sensor test and refused to take a chemical test. The failure to reveal the hearsay nature of the information improperly deprived County Court of the opportunity to determine the reliability of the information for itself as a neutral, detached arbiter … . Accordingly, the motion to suppress the blood test results should have been granted and, in the absence of those results, the conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated must be vacated … .

As for the charge of reckless driving, it is defined as driving “in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway” … . “More than mere negligence is required, and the term has been held to mean ‘the running or operation of an automobile under such circumstances as to show a reckless disregard of the consequences'” … . “Determining whether conduct rises to the level of unreasonable interference or endangerment such that it constitutes the requisite recklessness involves the presence of additional aggravating acts or circumstances beyond a single violation of a rule of the road” … .

Here, the investigator who reconstructed the accident testified that defendant crossed the center line and collided driver-side “headlight to [driver-side] headlight” with the oncoming vehicle. The passenger in the other vehicle testified that the victim observed defendant in their lane and, although the victim attempted to move over as far as possible to avoid the accident, defendant was almost entirely in their lane at the time of the collision. Defendant admitted that she had been drinking, and the arresting officer testified that she had glassy eyes, slurred speech and the odor of alcohol. The officer concluded, based on his experience and observations, that defendant was intoxicated. People v Earley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07022, 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