You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

Plaintiff’s Decedent Fell to His Death in a Gorge on Property Owned by Cornell University—Questions of Fact Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent Was “Hiking” within the Meaning of the General Obligations Law (which Would Relieve the University of Liability) and Whether the Dangerous Condition Was Open and Obvious

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether plaintiff’s decedent was “hiking” within the meaning of the General Obligations Law when he fell into a gorge to his death on property owned by defendant Cornell University in Ithaca.  The court also determined there was a question of fact whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious:

Defendant maintains that it is shielded from liability by General Obligations Law § 9-103 (1) (a), which, as pertinent here, “grants a special immunity to owners . . . from the usual duty to keep places safe” when individuals use their property for specified recreational activities, including hiking … . The enumerated activities covered under the statute “are essentially self-explanatory” …. “Hiking” has been described as “traveling through the woods on foot” … and as “traversing land ‘by foot or snowshoe for the purpose of pleasure or exercise'” … . Comparatively, this Court recently determined that a person walking her dogs on a paved walkway was not engaged in “hiking” under the statute …. With one exception not applicable here, a person engaged in one of the enumerated activities is “presumed to be doing so for recreational purposes” without regard to his or her subjective intent ….

The critical determination is whether decedent’s activity constituted “hiking” under the statute. As described, he ran down the gorge trail and, in that literal sense, was “traveling through the woods on foot,” or “hiking,” as defined in Sega v State of New York … . The statute, however, speaks to specified recreational categories reflecting the intent of the Legislature “to allow or encourage more people to use more accessible land for recreational enjoyment” … . Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the nonmoving party, we agree with Supreme Court that, under the distinctive fact pattern presented, defendant did not establish, as a matter of law, that decedent was “hiking” within the embrace of General Obligations Law § 9-103 (1) (a) at the time of his death … .  * * *

…[A] question of fact remains as to whether the cliff’s edge was visible and obvious or presented a latent, dangerous condition necessitating an appropriate warning… . King v Cornell Univ, 2014 NY Slip Op 05393, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

,

No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding Is an Adulterated Food

The Third Department determined petitioner [Stahlie] did not have standing to bring an action contending that foie gras produced by force feeding ducks or geese was an adulterated food which causes secondary amyloidosis:

Standing “requir[es] that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy” … . Petitioners have “the burden of establishing both an injury in fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated” … . The injury in fact element must be based on more than conjecture or speculation … . * * *

Here, the risk of exposure is minimal and the indication of harm uncertain. Although petitioners included expert opinion indicating a possible risk of secondary amyloidosis from foie gras for some individuals with certain medical conditions, they cite no situation of any person ever suffering secondary amyloidosis that was linked to foie gras. Stahlie does not contend that he has any of the underlying medical conditions that may be related to an increased risk of secondary amyloidosis. His exposure to foie gras is infrequent. There are no studies, statements or warnings by the regulating agency or other pertinent governmental entity regarding a relevant risk related to the occasional consumption of foie gras. Stahlie has, at best, occasional exposure to a product that has not yet been connected by any actual case to the purported risk of harm alleged by petitioners. We agree with Supreme Court that, even affording petitioners the benefit of every favorable inference, their allegations regarding an injury in fact to Stahlie are speculative and rest upon conjecture. Matter of Animal Defense Fund Inc v Aubertine, 2014 NY Slip Op 05395, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

First Appellate Decision Addressing the Computation After Default of a Delinquent Tax Installment Agreement

In a tax foreclosure proceeding based upon the alleged default of the respondent in making installment payments on the taxes owed, the Third Department, in finding County Court had not correctly determined the redemption amount correctly, explained, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy,  how the calculation should be made:

We begin with the statutory requirements for installment agreements, as relevant to a default. RPTL 1184 (6) calls for amortization of interest over the period of the agreement and says that each installment payment is due on the last day of the month. RPTL 1184 (7) refers to RPTL 924-a for the applicable interest rate, which here is 12% per annum or 1% per month (see RPTL 924-a [1], [2]). Pursuant to RPTL 1184 (7), “[i]f an installment is not paid” by its due date, “interest shall be added at the applicable rate for each month or portion thereof until paid. In addition, if an installment is not paid by the end of the fifteenth calendar day after the payment due date, a late charge of [5%] of the overdue payment shall be added.” In the event of a default, the taxing authority has “the right to require the entire unpaid balance, with interest and late charges, to be paid in full” (RPTL 1184 [8] [b]), and can also go forward with foreclosure or enforce the collection of the delinquent tax lien pursuant to any other applicable law (see RPTL 1184 [8] [b]). * * *

We start by explaining how to calculate “the entire unpaid balance.” Although the statute may be complex, we find that its language is unambiguous and, therefore, we must give effect to its plain meaning … . Respondent acknowledges that it failed to pay the September, October and November 2011 installment payments. The “entire unpaid balance” must be figured as of the date that petitioner demanded that the balance be paid in full (or accelerated it), which occurred here after the September installment payment was overdue. When that payment was not paid by its due date, 1% interest should have begun to accrue (see RPTL 1184 [7])[FN3]. The statute calls for interest to be added if “an installment” is not paid, so this interest should be calculated on the overdue September installment payment. In addition, a 5% late charge should have been added for the September installment payment because that payment was overdue by more than 15 days (see RPTL 1184 [7] [imposing late charge of 5% “of the overdue payment”]). So the amount owed as of the date of acceleration, but before acceleration occurred, included the amount of the September installment payment, plus 1% interest on that installment payment amount from the day after the September payment was due until the date of acceleration, plus 5% of the September installment payment amount as a late charge. Adding that sum of September’s payment, interest and late charge to the remaining unpaid principal as of the date of acceleration (covering what would have been the October and November installment payments, but not including the amortized interest for those months as those payments were not yet due under the agreement) will produce “the entire unpaid balance.”

From the time that the balance was demanded (or accelerated), 1% interest per month is due on that amount until the property was redeemed. Although interest is still calculated at 1%, this interest rate is not determined under the statutory provisions dealing with interest on installment agreement payments (see RPTL 1184 [6], [7]), but is determined under the default provision of RPTL 1184 (8) (b) that allows petitioner to enforce the collection of the delinquent tax lien pursuant to any other applicable law (i.e., RPTL 924-a, which addresses interest on tax delinquencies).  Matter of County of Ulster…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05398, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

Questions of Fact Whether Handrail Which Did Not Extend to the Top of the Stairs Constituted a Dangerous Condition Which Proximately Caused Plaintiff’s Fall

The Third Department determined the fact that a handrail did not extend to the top of the stairs raised a question of fact about a dangerous condition of which the defendant had constructive notice:

The fact that the handrail only starts at the third step down the staircase presents a question for a factfinder to resolve as to whether this placement created a dangerous condition … .

Further, defendant did not meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that the lack of a handrail extending to the top of the stairs did not cause or contribute to claimant’s fall … . “Even if [claimant’s] fall was precipitated by a misstep, given her testimony that she reached out to try to stop her fall, there is an issue of fact as to whether the absence of a handrail [at the top of the stairs] was a proximate cause of her injury” … . Likewise, the fact that claimant had used the stairs in the past and may have been aware of the defective condition did not defeat her claim but, rather, this “may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence”… . Carter v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05394, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

, ,

Equitable Estoppel Against NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Not Available Under the Facts

The Third Department determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be applied to a statute of limitations defense raised by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).  The petitioner’s president [Sage] alleged he was told by an employee of the DEC [Lynch] that he need not comply with the 30 day time limit for challenging the DEC’s approval of a Freshwater Wetlands permit:

It is axiomatic that the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot generally be invoked against governmental agencies in the exercise of their governmental function … . However, estoppel may apply in certain “exceptional cases in which there has been a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or similar affirmative misconduct, along with reasonable reliance thereon” … .

Here, less than 30 days after the permit was issued, Sage spoke with Lynch regarding petitioner’s plans to challenge the permit. According to Sage, Lynch explained that he was not adequately familiar with the permit and needed to review the matter. Sage “believe[d]” that it was during this conversation that Lynch told him that petitioner did not need to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding within 30 days of the issuance of the permit because petitioner had four months to bring a challenge, which would give Lynch time to review it. Although Lynch acknowledged having spoken to Sage about the permit, he denied telling Sage that the applicable statute of limitations was four months or that the limitations period would be extended. Indeed, Lynch averred that he had no authority to waive or extend the applicable statute of limitations on behalf of DEC, and the statement that petitioner attributes to Lynch was, at best, akin to erroneous advice that does not rise to the level necessary to implicate the exception where estoppel may be invoked against a governmental agency… . Matter of Atlantic States Legal Found Inc v NYS Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 05384, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

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

 

,

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

 

Defendant Failed to Prove Three Elements of Adverse Possession

The Third Department determined that defendant failed to demonstrate it had acquired plaintiff’s property by adverse possession:

To establish adverse possession, defendant was required to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that its possession was “(1) hostile and under claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous for the required [10-year] period” … . Additionally, where, as here, the claim of right is not founded upon a written instrument, it was necessary for defendant to “establish that the land was ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure'” … . Upon our review of the record, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that defendant failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to more than one of these elements.

Specifically, defendant has failed to establish that its use of the disputed parcel was continuous or exclusive * * * [and] … defendant presented no evidence that it cultivated or improved the disputed parcel during the relevant period.  Salerno v CE Kill Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05224, 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