You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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

 

,

Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares

The Third Department determined a shareholders’ agreement. although it did not address the particular problem at issue, must be read to avoid a result which would be at odds with the clear purposes of the agreement.  One of the three shareholders of the closely held corporation (the defendant) was convicted of a felony and the other shareholders terminated his employment and sought to buy his shares. The defendant sought to prohibit the buy-out by arguing it was untimely under the terms of the shareholders’ agreement.  Because the corporation distributed alcoholic beverages, if the defendant remained a shareholder the corporation would lose its distributor’s license:

A shareholders’ agreement — like any other contract — should be enforced according to its terms … . In so doing, “[t]he contract must be read as a whole to determine its purpose and intent, and it should be interpreted in a way [that] reconciles all its provisions, if possible” … . To that end, “the goal should be a practical construction of the language used so that the reasonable expectations of the parties are realized” …, and “the contract must be interpreted so as to give effect to, not nullify, its general or primary purpose” … .

Here, the shareholders’ agreement reflects “[t]he shareholders[‘] desire to establish a market value for their shares, to effectively control the management of the company, for their mutual best interests, and to protect against divisive relationships which would arise if outsiders with incompatible management philosophies gained interests in the company.” Consistent with that stated objective, the agreement further recognizes that “[t]he company is dependent upon and derives substantial benefit from the continued active interest and participation of those shareholders who participate in the management of the company.” In an attempt to preserve the closely-held nature of the corporation, the agreement provides that when a shareholder’s employment with the corporation ceases, “he or she shall be treated as though he or she were selling all of his or her shares under paragraph A of . . . [s]ection [t]wo [of the agreement],” which outlines the procedures to be followed when a shareholder, during the course of his or her lifetime, “transfer[s] any of his or her shares to anyone other than a family member.” In such case, the shareholder is to give notice of his or her intention to sell and, “[f]or a period of thirty [30] days after the notice is delivered, the [corporation] shall have an option to purchase all or any part of the offered shares on the payment terms specified in [s]ection [f]our [of the agreement].” If the corporation does not exercise such option, then the remaining shareholders are granted an additional 30-day option to purchase any or all of the available shares. * * *

…[R]eading the agreement as a whole and affording it a practical construction that is consistent with and gives proper effect to the parties’ stated intentions …, we are satisfied that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel [defendant] to sell his shares to the corporation — even if that option to purchase was not timely exercised. To hold otherwise and permit [defendant] to retain his shares due to the asserted noncompliance with the time period set forth in the shareholders’ agreement not only would effectively rewrite the parties’ agreement and undermine its stated purpose, i.e., to retain managerial control within the closely-held family corporation, but would place the corporation at risk of losing its distributor’s license, thereby rendering its stock worthless… . A Cappione Inc v Cappione, 2014 NY Slip Op 05230, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea

The Third Department described the types of fundamental errors which survive a guilty plea. The prosecutor’s alleged failure to inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses in not one of them:

By his plea of guilty, defendant forfeited this argument. “As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered” … . As relevant here, a claim “that the District Attorney did not inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses to testify on his behalf as required by CPL 190.50 (6) . . . does not activate a question of jurisdiction or constitute a constitutional defect and, thus, does not survive a guilty plea” … . People v McCommons, 2014 NY Slip Op 05215, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

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

 

As a Matter of Discretion, the Court Can Grant a Separate Property Credit for Property Which Was Originally Separate But Which Was “Transmuted” into Marital Property (Overruling Precedent)—the Credit Was Properly Denied Here

The Third Department determined that, under the facts of the case, Supreme Court properly denied the wife a credit for the marital home which originally was her separate property.  The wife subsequently put the property in both her and her husband’s names and the property was used to consolidate the debts of both husband and wife.  However, the Third Department took the opportunity to explain that property which is originally separate but which is then “transmuted” to marital property can be the basis of a separate-property credit, overruling a case relied upon by Supreme Court to deny the credit.  The credit can be applied as a matter of discretion:

…[T]o the limited extent that Campfield [95 AD3d 1429] may be read to limit a court’s discretion to award a separate property credit to a spouse, like the wife, who transmutes separate property into marital property without changing the nature of the property itself, it should no longer be followed. As we have subsequently noted without reference to the way in which a marital asset was acquired, credits are often given for the value of the former separate property (see Murray v Murray, 101 AD3d at 1321). We have also subsequently explained that the decision to award a separate property origination credit in such a situation is a determination left to the sound discretion of Supreme Court (see Alecca v Alecca, 111 AD3d at 1128; Murray v Murray, 101 AD3d at 1321). Therefore, our own jurisprudence subsequent to Campfield indicates that such credit is not precluded as a matter of law when separate property has been transmuted into marital property. Myers v Myers, 2014 NY Slip Op 05228, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

,

Where There Has Been a Failure of a Material Condition of a Judicial Instrument of Surrender (of Guardianship and Custody of a Child), the Parent May Bring an Action to Revoke the Surrender Instrument

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined, where a parent agrees to surrender guardianship and custody of a child pursuant to a judicial instrument of surrender, a substantial failure of a material condition of the instrument allows the parent to bring an action to revoke the instrument.  In this case the persons specified in the surrender would not adopt the child:

In Matter of Christopher F. (supra), we were presented with a biological parent’s application to revoke a judicial instrument of surrender. We concluded that, although no procedures beyond notification of the parent were set forth in the statute at that time (see Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [former (c)], as added by L 1990, ch 479, § 2), “based upon our common-sense interpretation of the applicable statutory framework,” the failure of the provision of the surrender instrument conditioning the biological parent’s surrender on adoption of the child by the person specified in the surrender “permitted [the biological parent] to revoke her consent to the adoption” … . Accordingly, we granted the parent’s application for revocation of the judicial surrender. “‘The Legislature is . . . presumed to be aware of the decisional and statute law in existence at the time of an enactment'” … . Since the subsequent statutory amendments did nothing to abrogate or replace the relevant portions of our holding in Matter of Christopher F. (260 AD2d at 99-101), we conclude that, when there has been a substantial failure of a material condition of a judicial instrument of surrender, the procedure we endorsed in Matter of Christopher F. (supra) remains the appropriate procedure. In such a circumstance, the surrendering parent may bring an application before the court — either by petition or by motion — for revocation of the instrument (see id. at 101). Matter of Bentley XX, 2014 NY Slip Op 05222, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

Psychological Injury Related to Threat of Violence Compensable

The Third Department determined psychological injury stemming from a surgeon’s threat of physical violence made to the claimant (a physician’s assistant) during a surgical procedure was a compensable injury:

“For a mental injury premised on work-related stress to be compensable, the stress must be greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment . . .[, which is] a factual question for the Board to resolve” … . Here, the employer argues that the surgeon’s verbal threat could not give rise to a compensable stress claim, noting mitigating factors such as the presence of others in the operating room and claimant’s familiarity with the surgeon’s “difficult” personality. However, in adopting the findings of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, the Board determined that claimant’s uncontroverted psychiatric diagnoses were caused by the incident, and that, under the circumstances here, threats of physical violence made by her supervisor constituted greater stress than that which normally occurs in similar work environments. Inasmuch as such determination is supported by substantial evidence and this Court cannot “reject the Board’s choice simply because a contrary determination would have been reasonable,” it must be upheld … . Matter of Lucke v Ellis Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05009, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Warrant Discovery

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed an attorney’s suit for fees on lack-of-personal-jurisdiction grounds. The underlying action was brought by a New York resident (Swanson) injured in Massachusetts.  In explaining the general principles of long-arm jurisdiction, the court noted that some discovery may be necessary to determine the jurisdiction issue:

New York courts “may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Inasmuch as CPLR 302 (a) (1) is a “single act statute . . . proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . With respect to the requirement of a substantial relationship, “the existence of some articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon” is “[e]ssential to the maintenance of a suit against a non-domiciliary under CPLR 302 [(a) (1)]” … . Although plaintiff bears the burden of proof as the party seeking to assert jurisdiction, that burden “does not entail making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; rather, plaintiff need only demonstrate that it made a ‘sufficient start’ to warrant further discovery” … . In that regard, we note that the issue of whether long-arm jurisdiction exists often presents complex questions; “[d]iscovery is, therefore, desirable, [*3]indeed may be essential, and should quite probably lead to a more accurate judgment than one made solely on the basis of inconclusive preliminary affidavits” … .

In our view, plaintiff has made a “sufficient start” and demonstrated that additional facts establishing personal jurisdiction “may exist” but are within defendants’ exclusive control … . Specifically, plaintiff raised questions of fact regarding whether defendants interjected themselves into Swanson’s New York workers’ compensation proceeding, ultimately negotiating the workers’ compensation lien on the settlement proceeds from Swanson’s personal injury action. Gottlieb v Merrigan, 2014 NY Slip Op 05011, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Adjunct Professor Entitled to Unemployment Benefits Between Spring and Fall Semesters

The Third Department determined an adjunct professor who taught two courses in the spring and was offered two courses in the fall was entitled to unemployment benefits for the period between the spring and fall semesters:

A professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment” … . “[T]he question of whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following academic year is a question of fact and, if the Board’s findings in that regard are supported by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed”. .. . Here, the Board found that reasonable assurance was lacking, based upon a contingency in the employer’s offer that current full-time professors could, at any time up to the first day of classes, displace claimant and teach the courses assigned to him themselves. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, it will not be disturbed. Matter of Cardin …, 2014 NY Slip Op 04995, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Aggravation of Prior Injury Entitled Petitioner to Disability Benefits

Reversing the Comptroller, the Third Department determined that aggravation of a prior injury entitled petitioner to disability benefits:

This Court has repeatedly held that “‘when a preexisting dormant disease is aggravated by an accident, thereby causing a disability that did not previously exist, the accident is responsible for the ensuing disability'” ,,, . Here, although the Retirement System’s expert speculated that petitioner may have had some low level symptoms that he had learned to manage, there is no dispute that petitioner was not incapacitated prior to the February 2009 incident. The expert characterized the exacerbation of petitioner’s underlying conditions after that point as temporary, but could not explain why petitioner’s conceded disability had not resolved as of the date of the hearing, 3½ years after the accident. Under these circumstances, the Comptroller’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of Scannella v New York State Comptroller, 2014 NY Slip Op 05007, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

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