You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

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

 

Election Law Which Restricts Where Certain Candidates’ Names May Appear on the Ballot (Election Law 7-104 (4) (c)) Declared Constitutional

The Third Department determined that Election Law 7-104 (4) (c) was not unconstitutional as applied to petitioners, candidates for state office nominated by the Stop Common Core Party:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking a declaration that Election Law § 7-104 (4) (c) is unconstitutional as applied to them because it violates their rights to freedom of speech and association guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Although petitioners did not dispute that respondents complied with section 7-104 (4) (c), they asserted that strict enforcement of that provision creates a patch-worked and illogical ballot that promotes voter confusion, makes it more difficult for Stop Common Core Party supporters to locate petitioners, and impinges upon petitioners’ right to associate and express themselves as a party slate of candidates who share common ideals. Petitioners further sought to compel respondents to place their names on the Stop Common Core Party line … . * * *

[In overruling the line of cases relied upon by the petitioners, the] Court [of Appeals] …  stated that the prior version of the statute — which is not meaningfully distinct from the present version before us (see Election Law former § 248) — “is clear and constitutional” … . Addressing its prior cases … which found a strict application of the statute to be unfair and prejudicial in cases similar to this one, the Court stated that “‘[u]nfair and prejudicial’ must mean something beyond detriment or inconvenience since the Legislature itself has said that fairness calls for the prohibition of a third column” to candidates nominated by independent bodies when those candidates already appear on the ballot as the nominees of two or more major parties (Matter of Battista v Power, 16 NY2d at 201). The Court clarified that “[t]he kind of unfairness and prejudice which would make the section unconstitutional as to a particular group must be of such character as to deprive that group of proper representation on the voting machine or otherwise make it practically impossible for the members of that group to vote as such” (id.).

In our view, Matter of Battista v Power (supra) is controlling, particularly after the Court of Appeals expressly indicated that it had overruled the last of the prior, inconsistent line of cases …. Under Battista, Election Law § 7-104 (4) (c) is not unconstitutional as applied to petitioners—their names appear twice on the ballot in separate major party lines and the ballot further designates them as candidates of the Stop Common Core Party, albeit in a less prominent fashion than they seek … . Matter of Cahill v Kellner, 2014 NY Slip Op 06886, 3rd Dept 10-10-14

 

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Deemed a Compensable Consequential Injury Stemming from a Prior Physical Injury

The Third Department affirmed the board’s finding that claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits based in part upon posttraumatic stress disorder.  Claimant worked in a facility which housed juveniles who had committed the equivalent of felonies. Claimant was injured trying to control an unruly resident.  Thereafter, claimant, as part of his job, monitored video feeds from the facility and he often observed unruly behavior which reminded him of the incident in which he was injured:

Whether a subsequent disability arose consequentially from an existing compensable injury is a factual question for resolution by the Board, and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence” … . A consequential injury, in turn, is one that “result[s] directly and naturally from claimant’s prior injuries and the disability thereby produced” … . Claimant here testified that he was assigned to monitor video feeds of the facility upon his return to work from his back injury, work that required him to constantly observe the unruly behavior of the residents and reminded him of the initial incident and his injuries. His injuries left him feeling helpless to assist the coworkers he observed dealing with the residents, and he ultimately sought medical assistance after he became enraged and blacked out due to watching numerous incidents where other employees required aid. Claimant was thereafter diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, accompanied by anxiety and depression, and his treating psychologist stated in no uncertain terms that those conditions flowed from the May 2010 incident and the injuries he sustained therein. The Board credited the psychologist’s factually specific opinion … , and the employer submitted no medical evidence to rebut it. Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination … . Matter of Dowdell v Office of Family & Children Servs., 2014 NY Slip Op 06626, 3rd Dept 10-2-14

 

Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful Misrepresentation” Even If “Unintentional”

The Third Department determined claimant was properly denied benefits because of his self-employment activities which he did not report.  The court noted that the certification that claimant was not working supports the finding that he made a “willful misrepresentation even if it was unintentional:”

Whether a claimant is totally unemployed is a factual issue for the Board to decide, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . A claimant who performs activities on behalf of an ongoing business may not be considered totally unemployed, even if such activities are minimal or the business is not profitable, if he or she stands to benefit financially from its continued operation … . Here, claimant incorporated the business, opened a business checking account, created a business logo, started developing a business website, distributed business cards, attended seminars and trade shows and had apparel samples made by overseas manufacturers, all in furtherance of establishing a lucrative business. Notwithstanding the fact that claimant was not receiving income from the business, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that he was not totally unemployed … . Furthermore, given that claimant read the provisions of the unemployment insurance handbook relating to self-employment, but represented that he was not working when certifying for benefits, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that he made a willful misrepresentation — even if it was unintentional … . Matter of Romero…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06634, 3rd Dept 10-2-14

 

Claimant Did Not Receive a Bona Fide Offer of Suitable Employment that She Was Compelled to Accept After Her Lay Off—Details of Project Not Finally Established—Terms Less Favorable than Those of Prior Job

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits because she did not receive a bona fide offer of employment and, even she had been given a bona fide offer of employment she was not compelled to accept it because the terms were substantially less favorable than the terms of her employment prior to her layoff:

Initially, it is for the Board to decide whether a claimant has refused an offer of suitable employment for which he or she is reasonably fitted by training and experience (see Labor Law § 593 [2]), and its decision in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . Here, evidence was presented that the details of the project were not finally established at the time the employer made its inquiry, and the time frame and required hours were also not definitive … . In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not given a bona fide offer of suitable employment which she refused. Moreover, even if we were to conclude that she was given a bona fide offer of employment, the terms were substantially less favorable than the terms of her employment prior to her lay off and, consequently, she was not compelled to accept it … . Matter of Gibbons …, 2014 NY Slip Op 06351, 2nd Dept 9-25-14

 

Quitting in Anticipation of Discharge Is Not “Good Cause” for Leaving Employment

The Third Department noted that quitting a job in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for resignation.  Matter of Gijacalone…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06355, 3rd Dept 9-25-14 

 

Under the Circumstances, Caring for Husband While Awaiting a Kidney Transplant in Florida Did Not Constitute “Good Cause” for Claimant’s Leaving her Employment–Employer Had Offered to Accommodate Claimant with Leaves of Absence

The Third Department determined claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.  Claimant moved to Florida to care for her husband while they awaited a kidney transplant.  Claimant’s employer had offered to accommodate claimant’s needs for leaves of absence:

“Relocating to retire with and care for one’s spouse does not constitute good cause for leaving employment absent proof of a compelling medical necessity for the move” … . Claimant provided no medical documentation indicating that she had received medical advice to join her husband in Florida …, nor did she explain the five-month delay in relocating to Florida after she resigned. In any event, claimant’s husband received a kidney transplant six months after she resigned, and the employer indicated both that it would have granted her an additional leave of absence and that continuing work was available to her. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Matter of Marie C Lahens…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06349, 3rd Dept 9-25-14

 

Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined the board’s finding that claimant was an employee of ASISS was supported by substantial evidence, despite evidence suggesting an independent contractor relationship:

Whether there exists an employment relationship is a factual issue for resolution by the Board and its decision will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence … . In making such a determination, the Board considers whether the putative employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with the means being the more important consideration … . Here, the testimony of both claimant and Anthony Stone, the principal of ASISS, established that claimant completed an application for employment and was hired at a rate of pay established exclusively by Stone. ASISS assigned claimant to a specific location, established his hours of work and covered him under its workers’ compensation insurance. Furthermore, it provided him with an employee code of conduct and required him to call in to an automated system at the beginning and end of each shift, to sign a time sheet and to submit incident reports. The client was not informed that claimant was an independent contractor, claimant was required to request time off two weeks in advance and ASISS would find a replacement if claimant was unavailable for his shift. Claimant was required to adhere to the company dress code by wearing a dark suit and tie, as well as a company lapel pin, while on duty. Furthermore, any complaints about claimant’s performance would be handled by ASISS and claimant would receive his pay even if the client did not pay ASISS. Accordingly, while there was other evidence in the record suggestive of an independent contractor relationship, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was an employee … . Matter of Thomas J Dunno…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06348, 3rd Dept 9-25-14

 

“Contract Attorney” Properly Determined to Be an Employe

The Third Department determined an attorney who was hired by a firm as a “contract attorney” was entitled to unemployment benefits:

“[I]t is well settled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” … . Inasmuch as the work at issue here involved professional services that generally do not lend themselves to close supervision or control of the details of the work, the pertinent inquiry is whether the employer has retained “overall control,” and “substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship” … . In that regard, West hired claimant after an interview and based upon his analytical expertise acquired during a federal clerkship. West set his rate of pay at $100 an hour or on a per project basis, and provided him with a parking pass, office, desk, computer, receptionist, a firm email address and information technology support. Two attorneys supervised him, gave him instructions on how to perform his tasks, told him to ask permission before pursuing new legal issues, reviewed his work and made revisions. He was also covered under West’s malpractice insurance. In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of West, even if evidence exists to support a contrary conclusion… . Matter of Lavalley, 2014 NY Slip Op 06232, 3rd Dept 9-18-14

 

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