You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

,

Service Requirements of Business Corporation Law Trumped CPLR

The Third Department determined the service requirements of the Business Corporation Law trumped the CPLR:

It is well settled that the CPLR “govern[s] the procedure in civil judicial proceedings . . . except where the procedure is regulated by inconsistent statute” (CPLR 101…). As is relevant here, the procedure for the judicial dissolution of corporations is governed by Business Corporation Law article 11. Business Corporation Law § 1106 in particular provides that an order to show cause is to be served upon, among others, “the corporation[s] and upon each person named in the petition” (Business Corporation Law § 1106 [c]), while the petition need only be filed with the county clerk (see Business Corporation Law § 1106 [d]). As this is inconsistent with the requirements of CPLR 406 (b), the specific requirements of Business Corporation Law § 1106 control in this circumstance … . Matter of Gould Erectors & Rigging Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05004, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Capacity to Sue Does Not Go to the Jurisdiction of the Court—Court Can Not Dismiss a Complaint Sua Sponte On that Ground—Capacity to Sue Must Be Raised as a Defense in the Answer or in a Pre-Answer Motion

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not have the authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte based upon the plaintiff’s capacity to sue.  The capacity to sue is not jurisdictional and must be raised as a defense:

“The issue of lack of capacity to sue does not go to the jurisdiction of the court . . . . Rather, lack of capacity to sue is a ground for dismissal which must be raised by [pre-answer] motion [or in the answer] and is otherwise waived” … . Here, plaintiff’s capacity to sue was not raised by pre-answer motion or in defendant’s answer. Consequently, Supreme Court erred in raising the issue sua sponte and dismissing the complaint on that basis (see CPLR 3211 [e]). As such, the order must be reversed and the complaint reinstated. Town of Delhi v Telian, 2014 NY Slip Op 05008, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Evidence About the Quality of Representation Received by Indigent Defendants

The Third Department determined Supreme Court (acting as the trier of fact) should not have precluded the presentation of expert evidence in a case concerning the quality of legal services received by indigent criminal defendants:

Under familiar rules, expert opinions are admissible on subjects involving professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence” of the trier of fact … . “[T]his principle applies to testimony regarding both ‘the ultimate questions and those of lesser significance'” … . Notably, expert testimony is “appropriate to clarify a wide range of issues calling for the application of accepted professional standards” … .

Here, the experts possess the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge and/or experience to qualify as experts on the operation of indigent defense systems and the evaluation of such systems in light of prevailing professional standards … . * * *

At its core, this litigation is about system-wide conditions relating to and affecting the delivery of public defense — such as caseloads, funding and oversight, among others — and whether these conditions in the defendant counties are such that “the basic constitutional mandate for the provision of counsel to indigent defendants at all critical stages is at risk of being left unmet” … . By virtue of their extensive experience, the experts possess specialized knowledge with respect to the operation of public defense systems, the professional standards applicable to such systems, and the impact of systemic shortcomings on the provision of counsel to indigent criminal defendants at all critical stages. Such particularized knowledge is, manifestly, beyond that of a typical Supreme Court Justice, whose experience is oft confined to case-by-case determinations … . Hurrell-Harring v State of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 05010, 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