You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Questions of Fact Whether Picnic Table Near the Edge of a Porch Was a Dangerous Condition and Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether defendant created a dangerous condition in placing a picnic table near the edge of a porch that had no railing and whether the condition was open and obvious.  Plaintiff got up from the picnic table and fell off the edge of the porch, which was less than 29 inches from the ground (it was alleged no railing was required by the applicable codes):

…[The]evidence is sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether defendant created a dangerous condition by negligently placing the picnic table close to the porch’s edge and failing to demarcate or guard this ledge … . Factual issues also exist as to whether defendant’s negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of Hannah’s injury, as this is not a case “‘where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts'” … .

Defendant also claims that it had no duty to warn of the alleged dangerous condition created by the unguarded drop-off at the porch’s edge, as any such hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law. “It is axiomatic that a landowner has no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition that is readily observable by the normal use of one’s senses, and this postulate applies to adults and minors alike” … . However, a landowner [*3]has a duty to warn against even known or obvious dangers where he or she “has reason to expect or anticipate that a person’s attention may be distracted, so that he or she will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he or she has discovered, or fail to protect himself or herself against it” … . Here, upon considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the nature and layout of the event being hosted by defendant …, we find that triable issues of fact exist as to whether the drop-off constituted an open and obvious hazard such that defendant was relieved of its duty to warn … . Jankite v Scoresby Hose Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05390, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

,

Parcels of Land Entitled to Tax Exempt Status Despite Alleged Violations of Building and Fire Code

The Third Department determined three parcels of land were entitled to tax exempt status, based upon the use of the land for religious and charitable purposes, despite alleged building and fire code violations:

RPTL 420-a (1) (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for religious [or] charitable . . . purposes . . . and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon\. . . such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation as [therein] provided.” To demonstrate entitlement to this exemption, “(1) the [petitioning] entity must be organized exclusively for purposes enumerated in the statute, (2) the property in question must be used primarily for the furtherance of such purposes, . . . (3) no pecuniary profit, apart from reasonable compensation, may inure to the benefit of any officers, members, or employees, and (4) the [petitioning] entity may not be simply used as a guise for profit-making” … . Notably, “a property owner seeking a real property tax exemption which demonstrates that it is a not-for-profit entity whose tax-exempt status has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service and whose property is used solely for [charitable] purposes has made a presumptive showing of entitlement to [the] exemption” … . * * *

…[B]ecause the alleged violations do not divest petitioner of its ability to use the affected parcels for religious or charitable purposes, such violations cannot operate to deprive petitioner of a tax exemption to which it otherwise has demonstrated entitlement. To the extent that respondents believe that petitioner is not in compliance with all relevant provisions of the Town’s building and fire code, their remedy is to issue a stop work order or pursue whatever enforcement proceedings may be available. Oorah Inc v Town of Jefferson, 2014 NY Slip Op 05387, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Hospital Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-Employees

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital could be held vicariously liable for the actions of nonemployee doctors with respect to plaintiff’s decedent who was initially treated in the emergency room.  The court explained the applicable law:

Under settled law, a hospital ordinarily may not be held liable for the negligent acts of treating physicians who are not hospital employees … . Vicarious liability for malpractice on the part of nonemployee physicians may be imposed, however, on a theory of ostensible or apparent agency … . “‘Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority’ to act on behalf of the principal” … . Consequently, “a hospital may [face vicarious liability] for the acts of independent physicians if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician” … . Friedland v Vassar Bros Med Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 05388, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

Anesthesiologist Was Not an Employee

The Third Department determined an anesthesiologist was not an employee of QPMA:

Where, as here, the work of medical professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the purported employer retained “‘overall control’ . . . ‘over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means'” … .

Here, undisputed evidence was presented that, after QPMA referred claimant to PCSC, claimant set her own work schedule, performed all services at PCSC’s location, used PCSC’s supplies and equipment, and wore surgical scrubs bearing PCSC’s logo. Claimant’s per diem rate of pay of $1,000 per day was agreed to by her and a principal of QPMA, and QPMA paid her twice a month. Notably, however, QPMA did not issue claimant a W2 form, have a written contract with her, verify her credentials, retain any supervisory authority over her, provide her with performance reviews or evaluations, or maintain medical records related to her services. In addition, claimant paid her own malpractice insurance and licensing fees, was not reimbursed for travel expenses and was not restricted from working for others. Significantly, it was PCSC that dealt with any complaints related to claimant’s services. Although QPMA was responsible for referring another anesthesiologist if claimant was unable to perform her duties, the record as a whole does not demonstrate that QPMA retained sufficient overall control over important aspects of claimant’s work to be considered claimant’s employer… . Matter of Jean-Pierre …, 2014 NY Slip Op 05397, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

,

Ambiguity About the Timing of a Final Decision from an Administrative Agency Precluded Dismissal Based Upon the Statute of Limitations Defense

In the course of a decision finding the Commissioner of Health had properly determined Medicaid reimbursement rates for residential health care facilities, the Third Department determined ambiguity about when a final decision had been made precluded dismissal based on the statute of limitations defense:

“[W]hen an administrative body itself creates ambiguity and uncertainty” concerning the finality of a determination, however, “affected [parties] should not have to risk dismissal for prematurity or untimeliness by necessarily guessing when a final and binding determination has or has not been made. Under these circumstances, ‘the courts should resolve any ambiguity created by the public body against it in order to reach a determination on the merits and not deny a party his [or her] day in court'”… . Matter of Adirondack Med Center-Uihlein v Daines, 2014 NY Slip Op 05386, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant under the long-arm statute and under federal due process principles:

In deciding whether an action may be maintained in New York against a nondomiciliary defendant, the court must first determine whether jurisdiction exists under New York’s long-arm statute (see CPLR 302) based upon the defendant’s contacts with this state; and, if it does, the court then determines “whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process” … . The ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that such requirements have been met … .

Here, plaintiffs assert that defendant’s conduct falls within the provisions of CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), which confers jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tortious act outside New York that causes injury to a person or property within the state and the defendant “expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce” … . *  *  *

Based on the record before us, we likewise find that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is compatible with federal due process standards. Generally, “a State may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over non-domiciliary defendants, provided they had certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” … . The relevant inquiry is whether a defendant “purposefully avai[led] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . Under the circumstances here, inasmuch as defendant targeted New York consumers through a network of distributors that rendered it likely that its products would be sold in New York, “it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in [this state] if its allegedly defective merchandise has . . . been the source of injury to [a New York resident]” … . Darrow v Hectronic Deutschland, 2014 NY Slip Op 05239, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the First Action Precluded by Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Third Department determined that a prior ruling had res judicata effect even though the subsequent action sought damages for a different period of time:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … , so long as “the party to be barred had a full and fair opportunity to litigate any cause of action arising out of the same transaction and the prior disposition was a final judgment on the merits” … . Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” … . Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” … .

Here, the record reflects that plaintiff had a full opportunity to litigate the issues relating to his small claim for unpaid wages in City Court and such court’s disposition was a final decision on the merits. It is also evident that the claim brought by plaintiff in City Court and the instant action arise out of the same series of transactions in connection with his work for defendants. Although the present action concerns wages allegedly owed for a different time period than the City Court claim, inasmuch as it had matured at the time that plaintiff commenced the prior action …, plaintiff could have also raised the current claim at that time … . Tovar v Tesoros Prop Mgt LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05233, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

Even In a Nonjury Trial, a Defendant Should Not Be In Shackles Unless Reasons Are Placed on the Record

The Third Department found the error harmless, but it noted that, even in a nonjury trial, the defendant should not be in shackles in the courtroom unless reasons for the restraint are put on the record:

Even in a nonjury trial, a defendant should not remain restrained in the courtroom unless the trial court sets forth particularized reasons for such restraint on the record … . People v Whitehead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05213, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

“Confidential Relationship” With Decedent Not Demonstrated As a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled that petitioners had not demonstrated, as a matter of law,  the existence of a confidential relationship between the decedent and respondent. Where a confidential relationship is demonstrated, the stronger party has the burden of showing by clear and convinciing evidence that a particular transaction from which the stronger party benefitted was not the result of undue influence.  The court explained the operative criteria for a confidential relationship:

A confidential relationship is one that is “of such a character as to render it certain that [the parties] do not deal on terms of equality” … . Such inequality may occur from either one party’s “superior knowledge of the matter derived from a fiduciary relation, or from an overmastering influence” or from the other’s “weakness, dependence, or trust justifiably reposed” on the stronger party … .

The limited issue presented on this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred when it declined to find, as a matter of law, that there was a confidential relationship between respondent and decedent. The basis for petitioners’ claim that such a relationship existed was, in part, the familial relationship between respondent and decedent. A familial relationship, however, is not necessarily a confidential relationship … . Importantly, the existence of a confidential relationship is ordinarily a factual determination based upon “evidence of other facts or circumstances showing inequality or controlling influence”… . Matter of Bonczyk v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 05231, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

, ,

Party Moving for Summary Judgment May Not Submit Expert Affidavits With the Identity of the Expert Redacted

In the summary judgment context, the Third Department determined the moving party in a medical malpractice action, unlike the non-moving party, could not submit affidavits from experts with the names of the experts redacted:

In order to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendants were required to “tender[] sufficient, competent, admissible evidence demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact” … . Among other submissions, defendants provided an affidavit from a medical expert whose identity was redacted and who opined on the appropriateness of plaintiff’s medical care and the adequacy of the warnings given to plaintiff.efendants also submitted an unredacted version of the affidavit for Supreme Court’s in camera review. Because defendants were the movants for summary judgment, their submission of an anonymous expert affidavit was incompetent evidence not proper for consideration upon the motion … .

While the Legislature has allowed for some protection from disclosure of the identities of medical experts during “[t]rial preparation” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), and, consistent with this intention, courts have found it appropriate to allow nonmovants in the summary judgment context to also withhold experts’ identities from their adversaries upon the reasoning that such parties did not choose to abandon the disclosure protections provided during trial preparation …, the Legislature has shown no broad intention of protecting experts from accountability at the point where their opinions are employed for the purpose of judicially resolving a case or a cause of action. Further, we see no compelling reason to allow for such anonymity that would outweigh the benefit that accountability provides in promoting candor … . Requiring a movant to reveal an expert’s identity in such circumstances would allow a nonmovant to meaningfully pursue information such as whether that expert has ever espoused a contradictory opinion, whether the individual is actually a recognized expert and whether that individual has been discredited in the relevant field prior to any possible resolution of the case on the motion … . Further, any expert who anticipates a future opportunity to espouse a contradictory opinion would be on notice that public record could be used to hold him or her to account for any unwarranted discrepancy between such opinions … . For these reasons, we will not consider the incompetent affidavit of defendants’ medical expert. Rivera v Albany Med Ctr Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05236, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

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