You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Remote Drug-Related Convictions and a Single DWAI Not Enough to Assess Points (in a SORA Proceeding) for Substance Abuse

The Third Department determined points for substance abuse should not have veen assessed against the defendant in a SORA proceeding:

Here, there is no indication on this record that either drugs or alcohol played a role in the offense at issue herein or in defendant’s prior sex offense. County Court relied on defendant’s 1992 convictions for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, his 2002 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and his 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired. However, in our view these widely spaced incidents are not of the nature or degree to establish a pattern of drug or alcohol use by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-l [5] [a] [ii]…). The 1992 convictions, as well as other information relied upon in the case summary pertaining to defendant’s drug and/or alcohol use at that time, are excessively remote …, and his 2002 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree does not prove drug use …, leaving his 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired as the sole evidence of defendant’s substance abuse within the past 20 years … . People v Ross, 2014 NY Slip Op 02472, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement Applied

The Third Department determined the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the glove box of defendant’s car based upon information provided by a confidential informant:

…[T]here was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found inside … . Following defendant’s arrest, the information furnished by the confidential informant provided the police with probable cause to believe that there was a large quantity of ecstasy in the glove box. Inasmuch as the police were authorized to conduct a warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle, County Court properly denied his suppression motion. People v Portelli, 2014 NY Slip Op 02467, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing

The Third Department determined there were triable issues of fact about whether the occupants of a golf cart were exposed to more than the usual hazards associated with golf.  The cart tipped over on an incline.  There was (disputed) evidence indicating wet leaves were on the ground and the tires of the cart were “bald:”

A person who chooses to participate in an athletic or recreational activity “‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . “[G]olfers are deemed to assume the risks of open topographical features of a golf course” …and they are “held to a common appreciation of the fact that there is a risk of injury from improperly used carts” … . Nevertheless, liability may be found where the participant proves “a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … .

Although plaintiff was an experienced golfer, he had not previously played on this particular course. He claimed that he was driving slowly and cautiously when the car simply slid out of control on wet leaves. Defendant acknowledged that the golf course path where the accident occurred was steep and winding. While defendant disputes the amount of wet leaves that plaintiff contends were on the path, it is uncontested that there were leaves present and that defendant’s employees had inspected the area earlier in the day. Significantly, plaintiff produced proof via the testimony of the person with whom he was golfing that, after the accident, he observed that the tires on the golf cart were “bald.” Rose v Tee-Bird Golf Club Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02481, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

Commissioner’s Finding Site Constituted a Significant Threat to Public Health or Environment Upheld

The Third Department affirmed the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s denial of petitioner’s request to reclassify a hazardous waste site.  The site is polluted with PCBs and is classified at level 2 (significant threat to public health or environment–action required).  The petitioner sought reclassification at level 3 (no significant threat to public health or environment–action may be deferred).  In finding the Commissioner’s determination supported by the evidence, the court wrote:

The Commissioner did not … premise his determination in this matter upon the mere presence of PCBs at the site and a potential for harm. He found that a highly toxic contaminant (i.e., PCBs) was present in concentration levels at the site that exceeded the environmental quality standards (see 6 NYCRR part 703; see also 6 NYCRR former 375-1.4 [b] [7]; 375-2.7 [a] [3] [viii]), and he determined that, under such circumstances, the contaminant could constitute a significant threat. We need not decide in this case whether such exceedances of environmental standards alone can — as stated by the Commissioner — constitute a significant threat since ultimately he did not premise his determination solely on such ground. Although setting forth in detail the reasons and record proof supporting a conclusion that the onsite impact of the PCB contamination at the site constituted a significant threat, he went on to find record support for actual threats and offsite impact on the river, wetlands and nearby wildlife. The exceedances of groundwater standards was clearly a significant factor; however, it was considered in conjunction with other proof pertinent to the ultimate finding of a significant threat. We are not persuaded that the Commissioner used an analysis at odds with the regulations or case law. Matter of ELG Utica Alloys Inc v Department of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 02485, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

Judge Immune from Suit

The Third Department upheld the dismissal of a suit against a judge which alleged “intentional professional and malicious misconduct.”  The court explained the applicable law:

It is well settled that a “[j]udge is immune from civil liability for acts done in the exercise of his [or her] judicial function” … . “Absolute immunity is . . . necessary to assure that judges, advocates, and witnesses can perform their respective functions without harassment or intimidation” … and “discourages inappropriate collateral attacks on court rulings and fosters judicial independence by protecting courts and judges from vexatious litigation” … . There are only two recognized exceptions to the broad cloak of judicial immunity, namely “when a [j]udge does not act as a [j]udge, or when a [j]udge, though acting under color of judicial authority, lacks any jurisdiction supporting judicial authority for the action taken” … . As to the latter exception, there is a clear “‘distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction[, which fall within the scope of immunity,] and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter,'” which do not…. .  Best v State of New York 2014 Slip Op 02484, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

, , ,

Code Provision Requiring Issuance of Rental Certificate by City Prior to Leasing an Apartment Deemed Constitutional

The Third Department determined the code provision (Rental Certificate Ordinance or RCO) which required the issuance a rental certificate each time a vacant apartment is about to be leased is constitutional.  Entry to the apartment is accomplished either with the consent of the owner, or upon the issuance of a search warrant:

The RCO provided, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any owner to permit the occupancy of any rental unit subject to [former article X of the Code of the City of Schenectady], unless such unit has a current and valid rental certificate or temporary rental certificate” (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-59 [A]). Thus, “[w]henever a vacancy shall exist in a rental unit and a leasing is about to occur, or whenever there is a change in occupancy, the owner [must] submit a written application for a rental certificate” (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [A] [1]) and, “within five working days of receipt of [such] application, the Building Inspector [must] inspect the rental unit to determine if [it] is in compliance with” certain enumerated housing standards (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [A] [2]). If the Building Inspector is unable to perform the necessary inspection within the five-day window, the property owner may apply for a temporary rental certificate, which “is valid for 30 days or until the unit is inspected . . . , whichever is less” (Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [B]). In the event that the property owner refuses to grant access to the premises, “the Building Inspector shall apply for a search warrant or court order in an appropriate court and upon a showing that there [are] reasonable grounds to believe that a building or rental unit within [the] building is rented and occupied in violation of” the RCO (Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-61). A property owner’s violation of the RCO may result in the imposition of a fine or other civil or criminal penalties (see Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-67).

“It is well established that the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to administrative inspections of private commercial premises. [Thus,] to the extent that the challenged ordinance directly or in practical effect authorizes or requires a warrantless inspection, it will not pass constitutional muster” … . Here, however, the RCO expressly required either the consent of the property owner or the issuance of a valid search warrant in order for the Building Inspector to conduct the administrative inspection. As the inclusion of the warrant requirement is sufficient to safeguard plaintiff’s constitutional rights, his challenge to the facial validity of the RCO must fail … . Wisoff v City of Schenectady, 2014 NY Slip Op 02479, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

No Negligence Cause of Action Against Commissioner of Mental Health (Based Upon Alleged Statutory Violations)

The Third Department determined claimant, an insanity acquittee, could not bring a negligence cause of action against the Commissioner of Mental Health based upon alleged violations of Criminal Procedure Law 330.20.  The court explained the applicable law re: the liability of a governmental agency (special duty/special relationship):

The rule is well established “that an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . A special duty will only arise from a special relationship, which can be formed in three ways: “(1) when the [governmental entity] violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the [governmental entity] assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . Inasmuch as claimant asserts that CPL 330.20 creates a statutory duty for the benefit of the class of which he is a member, i.e., insanity acquittees, only the first of these categories is potentially applicable.

Significantly, “[t]o form a special relationship through breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action” … . Because CPL 330.20 does not expressly confer upon insanity acquittees the right to seek civil damages for any failure by the Commissioner to follow the statute’s provisions, “recovery may be had only if a private right of action can be implied” … . A private right of action may be fairly implied when all of the prerequisites are fulfilled, namely: “(1) the [claimant] is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … . In our view, the legislative history supports the finding of the Court of Claims that CPL 330.20 was primarily enacted to benefit the public, rather than insanity acquittees … . Justice v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02483, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Keeping Animals In Cages On the Same Lot as Petitioner’s Home, as Part of the Operation of a Business, Constituted a “Home Occupation” Requiring Approval by the Zoning Board

The Third Department determined the zoning board of appeals had properly ruled that petitioner was conducting a business inside his home without approval, a so-called “home occupation.”  The fact that large animals were kept outside petitioner’s home in permanent cages was found to be within the scope of the relevant definition of an “accessory structure:”

Petitioner contends that the activities occur in the cages on his property, not in any building on the property or any offsite location. There is no evidence in this record to show that business activities are conducted “inside the residence” or “at off-site locations,” so such activities must be conducted in “a legally constructed accessory building” to fall within the ordinance (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [42]). An “[a]ccessory [s]tructure” is defined as a building “which is located on the same lot” as, and “the use of which is incidental to that of,” a one- or two-family dwelling (Zoning Law[2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [1]). “Building” is defined as a one- or two-family dwelling or portion thereof “intended to be used for human habitation” but also “shall include accessory structures thereto” (Zoning Law [2008] of theTown of Mayfield § 202 [A] [10]). While cages would not generally be considered buildings, the Zoning Law contains a section on “[w]ord [u]sage” stating that “[t]he word ‘building’ includes the word ‘structure'” (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 201). That provision clarifies any ambiguity concerning the definitions of the relevant terms here, as a cage that is built into the ground – like these cages apparently are – can be considered a structure, and the cages are on the same lot as and incidental to the use of petitioner’s residence … .The code enforcement officer did not assert that the cages were illegally constructed. Thus, as petitioner is carrying on business activities in legally constructed accessory structures, he is operating a home occupation. Matter of Salton v Town of Mayfield Zoning Board of Appeals, 516523, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

Respondents Must Demonstrate Why Request Not Specific Enough For Extraction from Electronic Documents/Claim that Documents Are Exempt from Disclosure Is Not Enough to Defeat the Request—Remedy Is In Camera Review

The Third Department determined the respondents should demonstrate why the descriptions of the documents sought by a FOIL request were insufficient for extraction from electronic documents.  With respect to respondents claim the information was exempt from disclosure, that assertion is not enough to defeat a FOIL request and the appropriate relief is an in camera review of the material alleged to be exempt:

We agree with respondents that a valid basis for denying the FOIL request has been established – at least with respect to the actual files – when they are not “indexed in a manner that would enable the identification and location of documents” … . Respondents have also indicated, however, that at least some of the files are maintained electronically. Despite this, they have offered no evidence to establish that the descriptions provided are insufficient for purposes of extracting or retrieving the requested document from the virtual files through an electronic word search of the former Assistant County Attorney’s name or other reasonable technological effort (see Public Officers § 89 [3] [a]…).  We also note that “the broad allegation here that the files contain exempt material is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the records are open for inspection” … . In the event that the requested record can be located electronically and respondents are able to establish that the document contains exempt material, the appropriate remedy is an in camera review and “disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material”… . Matter of Pflaum v Grattan, 516119, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

Agent for Insurance Company Properly Found to Be an “Employee” Entitled to Unemployment Insurance

The Third Department determined claimant, who sold insurance as an agent for Coface North America Insurance Company, was an “employee” entitled to unemployment insurance:

Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard – if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole – will not be disturbed … . “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” … .

Here, there is ample evidence to support the Board’s finding that Coface exercised control over numerous aspects of claimant’s work. Coface, among other things, assigned claimant a sales territory …, provided her with sales leads that she was required to pursue…, precluded claimant from representing other insurers without Coface’s prior written consent …, directed that claimant devote all of her efforts to generating business for Coface, reserved the right to accept or reject insurance proposals submitted by claimant …, required claimant to work under the direction and supervision of its regional agent, set claimant’s commission rate, paid claimant a bimonthly draw against her commissions that she was not required to refund … and contributed to her health insurance premiums … . Additionally, claimant testified that Coface scheduled her workday, required her to work out of its regional office during her first year of employment, insisted that she keep her supervisor apprised of her whereabouts at all times and required her to attend quarterly sales meetings … . Such proof, in our view, is more than sufficient to support the Board’s finding of an employment relationship between Coface and claimant (and those similarly situated) – notwithstanding the existence of other proof in the record that could support a contrary conclusion …, including a provision in the parties’ agreements identifying claimant as an independent contractor… . Matter of Joyce …, 517162, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

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