You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Request to File Late Notice of Claim Against School District Stemming from Alleged Sexual Abuse of the Plaintiff by a Teacher Should Not Have Been Granted—School Did Not Have Actual Notice—No Good Reason for Delay in Filing

The Third Department determined the request to file a late notice of claim against a school district should have been denied.  The underlying action relates to alleged sexual abuse of a student (plaintiff) by a teacher.  The plaintiff and the teacher had initially both denied the existence of relationship.  Therefore, the court determined the school did not have actual knowledge of it.  The lack of actual knowledge coupled with the delay in filing the notice of claim after the plaintiff turned 18 required denial of the application:

…”[I]n determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the [plaintiff] was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the [plaintiff’s] infancy and the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the [plaintiff] demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (4) the public corporation was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits” … . Although no one factor is determinative … , the case law makes clear that actual knowledge “is a factor which should be accorded great weight” … . Notably, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim requires more than “mere notice of the underlying occurrence” … and the fact that some sort of injury occurred… . Babcock v Walton Cent School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 05013, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Summary Judgment Properly Awarded in Derivative Child-Neglect Proceeding

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded in a derivative child-neglect proceeding, based in large part on findings made in prior neglect proceedings:

“‘Although it is a drastic procedural device, Family Court is authorized to grant summary judgment in a neglect proceeding where no triable issue of fact exists'” … . Neglect or abuse of one child typically may not serve as the sole support for a finding of derivative abuse or neglect; however, where the proof of “past neglect and abuse demonstrably ‘evidence[s] fundamental flaws in the respondent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood, proof of abuse or neglect of other children is alone sufficient to sustain a finding of abuse or neglect of another child'” … . A prior determination should be “sufficiently proximate in time to reasonably conclude that the problematic conditions continue to exist” …, but “there is no ‘bright-line, temporal rule beyond which we will not consider older child protective determinations'” … .

Here, petitioner established a prima facie case for summary judgment with the affidavit of its counsel setting forth the prior proceedings, the Family Court records of such proceedings and an affidavit from a caseworker. The nature of the acts that Family Court had found in the 2010 proceedings as having been perpetrated upon a child entrusted to respondent’s care established a fundamental defect in respondent’s understanding of parental duties. The caseworker set forth, among other things, respondent’s failure to complete preventive services, including sex offender treatment. Although respondent’s affidavit in opposition offered explanations for his inability to complete some services, he acknowledged that he had not yet completed sex offender treatment. Given the nature of the 2008 acts found in the 2010 proceedings, together with the fact that respondent is still in, but has not yet successfully completed, sex offender treatment, we are unpersuaded that Family Court erred in granting summary judgment… . Matter of Ilonni I…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04987, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Adirondack Park Agency Properly Approved the Construction of a Resort Within the Confines of the Park

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, the Third Department determined the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) properly approved the construction of a club and resort project which will include a ski area, an inn, single family residences, camps and a marina.  The court went through each of the required findings and found them supported by substantial evidence.  The court explained its review role as follows:

Judicial review of the APA’s determination, made after a hearing at which evidence was taken pursuant to law, is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]…). Substantial evidence does not require overwhelming evidence or even a preponderance of the evidence … . Rather, all that is required is “‘relevant proof [that] a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact'” … . Additionally, “[t]he fact that a different conclusion could have been reasonably reached is not sufficient ground to set aside the determination” … .

To the extent that petitioners argue that the APA’s determination was affected by errors of law (see CPLR 7803 [3]), this Court’s “review of these arguments, made in a CPLR article 78 proceeding following a hearing, is limited to whether the [APA] exceeded its authority, violated a controlling law or otherwise acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner” … . Matter of Protect the Adirondacks! Inc v Adirondack Park Agency, 2014 NY Slip Op 04992, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Precedent Precluded Denial of Benefits

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined precedent required that benefits be afforded the claimant because his testimony he was engaged in a job search was deemed credible by the Board:

…”[E]ven though there is in the record substantial evidence to support the determination made,” the Board’s “failure to conform to [its] precedent will . . . require reversal on the law as arbitrary” if the Board has failed to explain the reason for its departure … . As relevant here, the Board has previously determined that a claimant remains attached to the labor market when he or she is actively participating in, among other things, a job-location service — such as One-Stop Career Centers — or Board-approved vocational rehabilitation, and that a claimant’s credible testimony regarding that participation is sufficient to establish attachment to the labor market (see Employer: Classic Bindery, Inc., 2011 WL 3612749, *2, 2011 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 3997, *5-6 [WCB No. G021 5031, July 27, 2011]). The Board here expressly found claimant’s testimony that he was actively participating with One-Stop to be credible but, because claimant did not provide documentation of his participation, the Board concluded that he failed to adequately demonstrate attachment to the labor market. The Board purported to rely upon a prior decision, Employer: American Axle …, in determining that documentation was necessary but, while American Axle held that documentary evidence of active participation in One-Stop constitutes evidence of attachment to the labor market, it required documentary evidence only in connection with a claimant’s independent job search (id.). American Axle, therefore, does not provide an adequate basis for distinguishing Classic Bindery.  Matter of Winters v Advance Auto Parts, 2014 NY Slip Op 05005, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Easement Grants Only the Right to Ingress and Egress, Not a Right to the Physical Passageway Itself

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have ordered defendant to remove a gravel driveway.  The easement over defendant’s land gave plaintiffs the right of ingress and egress.  Installing the gravel driveway did not impair plaintiff’s right to ingress and egress:

“[W]here the intention in granting an easement is to afford only a right of ingress and egress, it is the right of passage, and not any right in a physical passageway itself, that is granted to the easement holder” … . Accordingly, “in the absence of a demonstrated intent to provide otherwise, a landowner burdened by an express easement of ingress and egress may narrow it, cover it over, gate it or fence it off, so long as the easement holder’s right of passage is not impaired” … .

Here, the deed establishing the right-of-way states that it is “for the purpose of ingress and egress to” plaintiffs’ property. The uncontroverted evidence established that, while the turnaround was previously comprised of hard-packed dirt, defendant installed a gravel driveway on the turnaround. Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence establishing that the gravel driveway impeded their use of the turnaround. Although plaintiffs established that they had a right of passage for the purpose of ingress and egress, they failed to further establish that defendant’s addition of a gravel driveway impaired that right to any extent. Thibodeau v Martin, 2014 NY Slip Op 04996, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Work-Related Call to Coworker Which Triggered Harassment by Coworker’s Husband Was Proper Basis for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

The Third Department determined the claimant was properly awarded workers’ compensation benefits for exacerbation of post traumatic stress disorder.  A work-related phone call made by the claimant to a coworker caused the coworker’s husband to suspect a romantic relationship between claimant and the coworker.  The coworker’s husband undertook a course of threatening conduct which culminated in an unsuccessful murder-for-hire plot:

Whether the injury producing event arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment depends upon whether it “originated in work-related differences or purely from personal animosity” … . If there is “any nexus, however slender, between the motivation for the assault and employment,” an award of workers’ compensation benefits is appropriate … . Here, the work-related phone call from claimant to his coworker’s home was the basis for the subsequent harassment of claimant at his place of employment, the employer’s internal investigation and claimant’s request for a transfer — all of which exacerbated claimant’s preexisting stress disorder. As the record reveals no connection between claimant and the coworker’s husband outside of claimant’s work-related duties, the Board properly found the required nexus between the threatening conduct that exacerbated claimant’s preexisting condition and claimant’s employment …  Matter of Mosley v Hannaford Bros Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 04997, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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