You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement

The Third Department upheld the determination that claimant was an employee, entitled to unemployment benefits, despite the existence of an independent contractor agreement.  Claimant was hired by AML, a consulting firm, for a four-week research project for one of AML’s clients.  Claimant worked at the client’s location:

Initially, we note that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … . In making this determination, particularly where the work of professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the employer exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” … . Here, undisputed evidence was presented that AML set claimant’s rate of pay, established her work hours, provided training, conferred with her on a regular basis, reviewed her work product and submitted her final report to the client. Significantly, although claimant physically worked at the client’s location, an AML representative was present on a daily basis to discuss the project with claimant. Under the circumstances presented, notwithstanding the existence of the independent contractor agreement, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant and those similarly situated research analysts were AML’s employees … . Matter of Stewart…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04539, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Not Liable After Liability Has Shifted to Special Fund—Board Overruled Precedent Holding Otherwise When the Carrier is Responsible for Delay Until the Special Fund Is Available to Assume Liability

The Third Department upheld the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that the workers’ compensation carrier is not liable for medical expenses after liability has been shifted to the Special Fund. The Board had the power to overrule prior precedent which allowed the carrier to remain liable if it was attempting to delay providing benefits in order to have liability shifted to the Special Fund:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) provides that, where seven years have passed from the date of claimant’s injury and three years have passed from the date of the last payment of compensation, “if an award is made it shall be against the [S]pecial [F]und” (emphasis added). Both of those time periods have undoubtedly been met in this case. The Board has previously observed, however, that a carrier with a pending application to shift liability may be tempted to delay in approving necessary medical expenses in order to avoid the complications of paying for them and later seeking reimbursement from the Special Fund. In an effort to address that concern, the Board had held that, in certain instances, a carrier would be held liable for medical expenses that would otherwise be the responsibility of the Special Fund if it “had attempted to delay payment for the surgery until after a determination was made regarding the applicability of [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 25-a, and not based . . . on a good faith objection to the surgery” … .

In the decision at issue here, the Board discussed that precedent at length and overruled it, which it was free to do given that it “set forth its reasons for doing so” and considered appropriate statutory and judicial authorities … . * * *

“The purpose of [Workers’ Compensation Law § ] 25-a is to save employers and insurance carriers from liability . . . for stale claims of injured employees” … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) furthers that purpose by requiring that any award “shall be [made] against the [S]pecial [F]und” if the requisite time periods have elapsed (emphasis added). As both the language and purpose of the statute demonstrate, the carrier “has no further interest in [the] payment of the claim” once liability has shifted to the Special Fund … , and “the Board ha[s] no power to direct that the award be paid by the [carrier] instead of out of the [S]pecial [F]und” under those circumstances … . Thus, the Board properly concluded that the statute does not permit a carrier to be held liable for medical expenses incurred after liability has been shifted to the Special Fund. Matter of Ercole v New York State Police, 2014 NY Slip Op 04550, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

, ,

Past Domestic Violence Admissible to Show Intent in Rape Case—Victim’s Statements in Hospital Report Admissible under Business Records Exception/Confrontation Clause Not Implicated Because Statements Were Not Testimonial—Victim’s Statements Shortly After the Rape Admissible as Excited Utterances

In a case where the defendant was charged with raping his ex-girlfriend, the Third Department determined past incidents of domestic violence were properly allowed in evidence to demonstrate intent, statements made by the victim (who died before trial from an unrelated cause) included in a hospital report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and statements made by the victim shortly after the rape were admissible as excited utterances.  With respect to the hospital records, the court wrote:

County Court properly allowed admission of statements that the victim made during her medical examination. “Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” … . Details of the abuse, even including the perpetrator’s identity, may be relevant to diagnosis and treatment when the assault occurs within a domestic violence relationship because the medical provider must consider the victim’s safety when creating a discharge plan and gauging the patient’s psychological needs … . The physician who examined the victim testified that all of the information in the medical records was relevant to and gathered for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and the primary purpose of the examination was to care for the patient’s health and safety, although a secondary purpose of the forensic examination was to gather evidence that could be used in the future for purposes of prosecution. Considering this information, although the victim was unavailable to testify because she died before trial (from causes unrelated to defendant’s crimes), defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated because the statements were not testimonial… . People v Pham, 2014 NY Slip Op 04276, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

,

Failure to Advise Respondent of His Right to Counsel at a Temporary Removal Hearing Not Condoned—Reversal Not Required Because No Evidence from the Temporary Removal Hearing Was Elicited in the Subsequent Neglect Proceedings

The Third Department determined that Family Court’s failure to advise respondent on his right to counsel in a temporary removal hearing did not require the reversal of a subsequent neglect adjudication.  None of the evidence elicited at the temporary removal hearing was used during the neglect proceedings:

It is well established that failure to fully advise a respondent of his or her right to counsel is a deprivation of a fundamental right that requires reversal of any “resulting adjudication” in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, whether or not prejudice is shown … . “[A] Family Ct Act § 1022 removal hearing is no exception” to this requirement … . Here, Family Court undisputedly failed to advise respondent of his right to counsel “[w]hen [he] first appear[ed] in court . . . before proceeding” with the temporary removal hearing (Family Ct Act § 262 [a]). We do not condone this failure … .

Nonetheless, we agree with the attorney for the children that the circumstances present here are distinguished from the precedent cited above –not due to the lack of any resulting prejudice, which would not suffice — but rather and specifically relative to whether the determination ultimately rendered after the fact-finding hearing constituted a “resulting adjudication.” Here, the neglect adjudication was based solely upon evidence elicited during the course of the fact-finding hearing; no testimony from the temporary removal hearing — in which respondent did not participate — was introduced. The adjudication following fact-finding did not therefore rely, in any part, on the evidence adduced at the temporary removal hearing … . Matter of Elijah ZZ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04280, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

,

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Challenge Search of Vehicle

The Third Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate he had standing to contest the inventory search of a vehicle, parked and empty at the time the police seized it, which turned up a weapon.  A police officer had seen the defendant driving the vehicle just before it was seized and a confidential informant had told the police where the defendant kept a handgun in the vehicle. Because the People did not rely solely on the statutory presumption of possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.15 (3)) the defendant needed to allege and demonstrate standing.  Because the defendant did not own the vehicle and denied driving it on the day it was seized, he was unable to challenge the search:

A defendant seeking to suppress evidence has the burden to allege and, if disputed, establish standing to challenge a search … . “Standing exists where a defendant was aggrieved by a search of a place or object in which he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy” … . While a defendant is entitled to “automatic standing” if the People “rely solely on the statutory presumption [of possession of a weapon] contained in Penal Law § 265.15 (3) to establish his [or her] guilt” …, defendant here cannot rely on that exception to his burden regarding standing. The People did not depend entirely upon the statutory presumption of standing, but had other evidence, including one officer who witnessed defendant driving the vehicle and the CI who provided information that defendant had a handgun in the vehicle and where within the vehicle the gun would be located … . Inasmuch as defendant did not own the BMW and denied that he was driving it on the day in question, he failed to allege any legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle. People v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04269, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

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