You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Criteria for Reformation of a Deed (Removing a Restrictive Covenant) Not Met

The Third Department explained the criteria for reformation of a document, in this case a deed.  The court determined that the plaintiff, who was seeking to have a restrictive covenant removed from a deed, did not demonstrate the criteria for reformation of the deed.  The criteria were described as follows:

“A party seeking reformation must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the writing in question was executed under mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with fraud” … . The burden is on the proponent of reformation to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the relief is warranted … .

Here, it is undisputed that the deed’s restrictive covenant was not set forth in the contract of sale and Salenger testified that he first became aware of it when he received the deed after the closing. Thus, plaintiff established the existence of a unilateral mistake regarding whether the restrictive covenant was intended to be included as a condition of the sale. Nonetheless, plaintiff’s proof fell short of establishing fraud on decedent’s part, which requires “‘a misrepresentation that is false and that the defendant knows is false, made to induce the other party to rely on it, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the other party, and injury'” … . Timber Rattlesnake LLC v Devine, 2014 NY Slip Op 03718, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

Applicant Eligible for Relief Under Drug Sentencing Reform Statute Must Be Afforded a Hearing

The Third Department noted that an applicant who is eligible of for a relief under the “drug sentencing reform” statute, CPL 440.46, must be afforded a hearing.  People v Cain, 2014 NY Slip Op 03711, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

Purchaser of a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility Was Not Required to Provide Financial Assurance for the Ongoing Performance of Corrective Action Imposed Upon the Prior Owner

The Third Department, reversing the Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioners ruling below on an issue of first impression, determined the subsequent owner of property formerly used as a permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facility was not required to provide financial assurance for the ongoing performance of corrective action imposed upon the prior owner.  The decision includes an exhaustive analysis of all the relevant statutes and regulations:

In essence, respondents seek to impose strict liability to provide financial assurance, in perpetuity, on all subsequent owners of property on which a former TSD facility was operated. Had this been the Legislature’s intent, rather than relegate us to a strained analysis of multiple regulations in order to reach that conclusion, it would have done so expressly. Indeed, the Legislature did exactly that in the context of New York’s “Superfund Law,” which requires the owner of an inactive hazardous waste disposal site, and/or any person responsible for the disposal of hazardous wastes at such site, to take remedial action … . Other examples of New York statutes imposing “strict liability” on property owners are the Oil Spill Act (see Navigation Law § 181 [1]) and the Scaffold Law (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). Thus, there can be no doubt that, if the Legislature had intended to impose liability on landowners for providing financial assurance under New York’s version of RCRA —[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] without regard to whether they had ever operated a TSD facility on the property in question — clear language to that effect could easily have found its place in the statute and regulations. While such a result would not be inconsistent with the laudatory environmental purposes of this regulatory scheme, absent such language, we discern no legal basis for the Commissioner to create such a requirement. To the extent that the Commissioner interpreted the regulations otherwise, such interpretation was arbitrary and capricious and affected by an error of law and we, therefore, annul his determination, as well as the penalties imposed on petitioners.  Matter of Thompson Corners LLC v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 03556, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

Derivative Neglect Finding Reversed—Operative Principles Explained

The Third Department reversed Family Court, finding the evidence insufficient to support an allegation of derivative neglect. The theory below was that the alleged abuse of one child, Dominick, was serious enough to warrant a finding of derivative neglect with respect to a child (Brad) who had not been born at the time of the alleged neglect of Dominick.  In the course of the decision, the court explained the operative principles:

Pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (i), “proof of the abuse or neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child of . . . the respondent.” However, “[e]vidence of neglect of one child typically may not serve as the sole basis for a finding of neglect [of another child, unless] the nature of the direct [neglect], notably its duration [and] the circumstances surrounding its commission[,] . . . evidence[s] fundamental flaws in the respondent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood” … . — flaws that are “so profound as to place any child in his or her care at substantial risk of harm” … . Contrary to the father’s assertion, petitioner’s failure to commence a direct neglect proceeding against him with respect to Dominick does not bar petitioner from maintaining this derivative neglect proceeding against him with respect to Brad. Similarly, the fact that Brad had yet to even be conceived — much less born — at the time of the home invasion or the search of the father’s residence is not dispositive, as the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence of the direct neglect of one child, i.e., Dominick, “is so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists” … . Matter of Brad I (Tiana K), 2014 NY Slip Op 03555, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

Vocational Factors Not Considered Re: “Temporary Marked Partial Disability Rate”

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board applied the correct standards when determining a claimant’s temporary marked partial disability rate.  The claimant argued that the Board should have considered “vocational factors” in determining the compensation rate, i.e., claimant’s level of education and her ability to find other work.  The Third Department, in a detailed analysis of the language of the applicable statutes, disagreed:

As pertinent here, the compensation rate for temporary partial disability resulting in reduced earning capacity is based upon the difference between the claimant’s pre-injury average wages “and his [or her] wage earning capacity after the accident in the same or other employment” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5]…). In almost identical language, the compensation rate for permanent partial disabilities that are not amenable to schedule awards is based upon the difference between the claimant’s previous wages “and his or her wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w]…)). For both temporary and permanent partial disabilities, the “wage earning capacity” of a claimant with no actual earnings is to be set by the Board at a reasonable level not greater than 75% of the claimant’s previous full-time earnings, “having due regard to the nature of his [or her] injury and his [or her] physical impairment” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5-a]…)). These provisions include no reference to vocational factors. However, when determining a claimant’s “loss of wage-earning capacity” in order to set the duration of permanent partial disability benefits following classification (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w] …), the Board considers not just the nature and degree of the injury, but also “work restrictions, [the] claimant’s age, and any other relevant factors, with the [claimant’s] ‘wage earning capacity’ as its inverse” …).

We reject claimant’s contention that this analysis should be applied to the determination of “wage earning capacity” as the term is used in Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a). Matter of Canales v Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, 2014 NY
Slip Op 03576, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

Misconduct Serious Enough to Warrant Firing Did Not Disqualify Employee from Receiving Unemployment Benefits

The Third Department affirmed the appeal board’s determination that, although the employee’s misconduct was serious enough to warrant firing, the employee was still entitled to unemployment insurance:

“Not every discharge for cause rises to the level of misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” … . Here, the Board, in its capacity as the “final arbiter of factual matters involving questions of credibility” …, found it significant that, while claimant did not lock out the machine properly, this was the first time that he was disciplined for violating this procedure, and he “self-reported the matter to the employer.” Although disqualifying misconduct can be found where an employee disregarded “an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest” …, here, there was proof in the record confirming that claimant’s lapse in judgment resulted in little risk of injury to him due to the lack of water and paper products in the system during the shutdown. Under the particular circumstances herein, we conclude that there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, regardless of proof that would support a contrary result… . Matter of Lee (Commissioner of Labor), 2014 Slip Op 03563, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

Participation in One’s Own Business, Even If the Business Generates No Income, Can Render One Ineligible for Unemployment Benefits

The Third Department determined claimant’s participation in his own business, even if minimal and the business is not profitable, supports the denial of unemployment benefits:

“A claimant who actively participates in his or her own business will not necessarily be considered totally unemployed even if his or her activities are minimal and the business is not profitable” … . Here, on behalf of the corporation, claimant obtained a credit card and opened a bank account with an initial deposit of $25,000. He wrote checks against the account for office furniture, charged travel expenses and solicited business. Although claimant did not receive any income through the corporation during the time he was collecting benefits, he intended to make money with it, and the record reflects that the corporation was still operating after claimant stopped collecting benefits and it ultimately generated income. Matter of McCann v Commissioner of Labor, 2014 NY Slip Op 03568, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

,

Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement Implicated the Defendant in the Light of Other Trial Evidence Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation

The Third Department determined a co-defendant’s statement, which had been redacted to exclude references to the defendant, was admissible.  The defendant’s argument that the statement implicated him in the light of the trial evidence was rejected:

A defendant’s right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of “the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant” …; however, no such violation occurs where, as here, the codefendant’s statement incriminates the defendant only in light of other evidence produced at trial … . Nor did the use of plural pronouns such as “we” and “they” in the statement necessarily indicate any involvement by defendant … . Accordingly, the statement was admissible, and defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated by the People’s arguments that drew inferences about his participation by linking the statement with other trial evidence … . People v Maschio, 2014 NY Slip Op 03551, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

Ambiguous Terms Interpreted to Give Meaning to All Terms—Here Water Damage Caused By Plumbing Backup Originating in Building Was Covered—Water Damage Caused By Plumbing Backup Originating Outside the Building Was Not Covered

The Third Department determined ambiguous terms in an insurance policy concerning whether water backing up through plumbing to cause damage was excluded were properly interpreted by Supreme Court. The ambiguous terms were interpreted to mean that damage from water backing up caused by a problem within the buildings own plumbing is covered, but similar damage caused by a backup originating outside the building (a municipal sewer system, for example) was not covered:

Where an insurer relies on an exclusion to avoid coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating “that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case” … . Moreover, we are “obligat[ed] to interpret the exclusion in a manner that gives full force and effect to the policy language and does not render a portion of the provision meaningless” … . “While [u]nambiguous provisions of a policy are given their plain and ordinary meaning, where policy language is unclear or subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, such ambiguities are resolved against the insurer” … .

In our view, when the exclusion and coverage provisions at issue here are read together, an ambiguity exists in the insurance policy as to losses resulting from a backup and/or overflow from sewers, drains and/or plumbing systems. Although the resolution of this ambiguity appears to be an issue of first impression in this state, Supreme Court’s analysis — that a plumbing system, as referenced in the coverage provision, includes drains that are on the insured’s property — is consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions that have interpreted the interplay of competing provisions similar to those in question here … . Pichel v Dryden Mut Ins Co 2014 NY Slip Op 03575, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

No Question of Fact Raised About Whether Buyer Was a Bona Fide Purchaser

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly granted in favor of a bona fide purchaser(Doyle) of property that had been the subject of plaintiff’s prior sales contract:

…[W]e reject plaintiff’s assertion that Supreme Court erred in finding that Doyle was a bona fide purchaser as a matter of law. “A bona fide purchaser — one who purchases real property in good faith, for valuable consideration, without actual or record notice of another party’s adverse interests in the property and is the first to record the deed or conveyance — takes title free and clear of such adverse interests” … . In support of his motion, Doyle averred that he purchased the property for $455,000, recorded the deed on April 20, 2012 and “was unaware of any contract to purchase [the property] between [NKT] and anyone” prior to doing so. He also denied having ever heard of either plaintiff or its principal prior to filing the deed. [Counsel] confirms that he did not inform Doyle of the negotiations with plaintiff — or even of plaintiff’s existence — prior to the sale of the property. Further, the recording page accompanying the deed — which indicates a purchase price of $455,000 and reflects payment of a transfer tax commensurate with that amount — corroborates Doyle’s allegation regarding the consideration paid for the property (see Tax Law § 1402 [a]). Given this evidence, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether Doyle “ha[d] knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on inquiry [notice] as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he [was] about to purchase”… . 10 Cardinal Lane LLC v NKT Land Acquisitions Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02990, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

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