You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Appraisal Report Lacking Required Supporting Data Properly Struck

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly struck the appraisal report offered by the petitioner in an effort to reduce the assessed value of petitioner’s golf courses.  The report was struck for failure to include supporting data (required by 22 NYSRR 202.59 [g][2]):

Petitioner’s appraisal report employed the income capitalization approach …, which purported to establish value by capitalizing the anticipated net operating income from a single year by a market oriented capitalization rate. The appraisal report used as a key component income and expenses from two other golf courses, and this information formed the basis for the operating expense ratio. However, the identity of the other two courses used in compiling this information was not provided, but was listed as “confidential” since petitioner’s appraiser had ostensibly obtained the information when working for such courses. We agree with Supreme Court that this information was critical and, since undisclosed, ran afoul of 22 NYCRR 202.59 (g) (2) … . *  *  *

We further note that, even if the presumption regarding the assessor’s value is rebutted, petitioner still had the burden of establishing overvaluation by a preponderance of the evidence …, and we generally accord deference to Supreme Court’s credibility determinations in analyzing the appraisal reports, as well as its decision, so long as they are “not based upon an error of law or against the weight of the evidence” … . Here, Supreme Court set forth several deficiencies in the appraiser’s report and the appraiser’s testimony that caused it to reject petitioner’s contention regarding value. Matter of Bove v Town of Schodack, 516416, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

Denial of For Cause Juror Challenges Required Reversal

After determining one of the counts of the sex-offense indictment must be dismissed as duplicitous because more than one offense was alleged to have taken place during the  time period described in the count, the Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction finding that for cause challenges to jurors should have been granted:

It is well established that “a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial” … . When a juror’s impartiality is in doubt, it is the court’s obligation to make further inquiries and to excuse the juror if the doubt is not fully dispelled … . In this respect, the court should err on the side of disqualification, as “the worst [it] will have done in most cases is to have replaced one impartial juror with another impartial juror” (…see CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; [2]…). Conversely, the denial of a challenge for cause to a biased juror calls fundamental fairness into question and “casts a doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict even before the trial begins” … .Here, one juror stated that his job experience as a correction officer “might” affect his ability to be impartial; when asked whether his employment would prevent him from applying “basic principles” granting certain rights to defendant, he responded, “It may.” A second juror said that her husband’s employment in law enforcement “could” cause her to give greater weight to a police officer’s testimony, and a third juror said that he could not “guarantee” that he would follow an instruction not to grant greater weight to such testimony. A fourth juror stated that her husband’s work as a sheriff’s deputy would”[p]ossibly” cause her to hesitate in providing defendant his constitutional protections; she further confirmed that she would be reluctant to apply the presumption of innocence. A fifth juror said that she believed that children who accused parents of sexual abuse could not lie, and a sixth juror agreed with other jurors that it was “highly unlikely” that a child would lie about this subject, and that it was probable that such a charge must be true because of its seriousness. Finally, a seventh juror expressed doubt when asked whether she would draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s choice not to testify, explaining that “it brings the question up why wouldn’t you[?]” Although she stated that she would follow the judge’s instructions in this regard, she added that she could not “control myself to take something that’s already in my mind away.” The prosecutor advised County Court that at least one of these jurors required rehabilitation because of such expressions of uncertainty, stating that “there should be inquiry from the court. “Nevertheless, the jurors were not questioned further, and none made “unequivocal assertion[s] of impartiality”… . People v Russell, 105083, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

Department of Corrections Must Comply with State and Federal Courts’ Expressed Intent to Impose Concurrent Sentences

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that the intent in both the state and federal proceedings was to impose concurrent sentences and ruled that the Department of Corrections could not act to make the sentences consecutive:

Issues involving sentencing by dual sovereigns are generally considered under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and occasionally give rise to complexities … . We do not need to engage in an extended discussion of the intricacies of primary jurisdiction and sentencing by dual sovereigns in this case.Succinctly stated, “[j]ust as the dual sovereignty doctrine acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as much punishment for a crime as that sovereign desires, the doctrine also acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as little punishment for the crime as that sovereign desires” … . Here, it is clear that both sovereigns intended the state and federal sentences to run concurrently. To run the sentences sequentially essentially because of the manner in which they were administered despite express intent otherwise by both sovereigns is analogous to a governmental entity other than the court lengthening a sentence, which this state does not permit …  Matter of Hall v LaValley, 515985, 3rd Dept 3-27-14

 

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing On His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Newly Discovered Evidence Someone Else Confessed to the Crime

The Third Department determined defendant had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction.  The court found no indication the new evidence could have been discovered with due diligence at the time of trial and the new evidence (the confession of another to the crime) was not merely impeachment evidence:

…[W]e find that the affidavit of Maurice Miller proffered by defendant was sufficient to warrant a hearing.Miller’s affidavit was subscribed to in January 2012 and alleged, among other things, that he had witnessed another drug dealer,Alexander Llanos, sell crack to Grimsley on the day of the shooting, that defendant was not present in the area, and thatLlanos later confessed to the shooting. First addressing whether the evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to trial, a court must keep in mind “the practicalities of the situation” and weigh the “limited resources generally available” to a defendant … . Miller averred that he had not contacted police at the time of the crime because he feared retaliation. Defendant was 16 years old, incarcerated and had assigned counsel. Under these circumstances, there is no indication that defendant’s failure to discover this witness was the result of a lack of due diligence … .

Turning to the question of whether the evidence proffered was merely impeachment evidence, the confession of Llanos to the crime was material to the ultimate issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence … . Furthermore, a defendant has a fundamental right to offer into evidence the admission of another to the crime with which he or she is charged and, therefore, a hearing should have been held to determine the probative value of Miller’s testimony and its probable effect on the verdict … . Accordingly, we find a hearing necessary to promote justice inasmuch as the issues raised are “‘sufficiently unusual and suggest searching investigation'” … . People v Page, 2014 NY Slip Op 105312, 3rd Dept 3-13-14

 

Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue Deliberations on the Remaining Count

The Third Department determined the trial court properly accepted a partial verdict and sent the jury back to deliberate on the remaining count:

After the jury indicated that it had reached a verdict, the court started taking the verdict but, when the jury was polled on the larceny charge, one juror stated that she had made a mistake with her verdict. As a result, and over defendant’s objection, Supreme Court took the verdict on the two counts of criminal contempt and sent the jury back to further deliberate on the larceny charge. In our view, Supreme Court properly followed the procedure outlined inCPL 310.70 (1) (b), and there is no basis in the record to conclude that the court abused its broad discretion in accepting the partial verdict and then directing the jury to continue deliberations… . People v Phoenix, 2014 NY Slip Op 105148, 2nd Dept 3-13-14

 

Licensee Assumed Sufficient Control Over Hired Premises to Create Duty to Maintain Premises in Safe Condition

The Third Department determined the American Cancer Society (ACS), as a licensee, had assumed sufficient control of the premises hired for an event hosted by the ACS to create a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition.  Plaintiff had tripped over a cable placed by an outfit hired by ACS to provide audio-visual services:

Supreme Court properly concluded that ACS owed plaintiff a duty of care. In the context of premises liability, a party owes a duty to take reasonable measures to protect others from dangerous conditions on the property only where that party owns, occupies or controls the property or makes a special use of it … . No party contends that ACS owned, leased or made special use of the Hall of Springs. However, ACS, as a licensee exercising control, owed a duty to those on the property to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition during the period of its use … . Although “mere sponsorship, absent control, does not render [an entity] legally responsible” for defects on the premises …, ACS’s involvement with the gala exceeded bare sponsorship. ACS entered into a contract with Mazzone Management for use of the Hall of Springs, approved the floor plan for the gala, hired ACES to provide audiovisual services, and hired a band for entertainment, and ACS representatives were present during and oversaw the set up and the event. An ACS representative testified at her deposition that she was present during the set up between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the day prior to the event, that she performed a walk-through of the premises, and that if she had noticed any hazards – including tripping hazards – she would have pointed them out and had them remedied. As the record demonstrates that ACS “conceived of, planned, orchestrated and supervised the [gala],” it had control over the premises during the set up and the event and thereby owed a duty of care to those present to maintain the site in a reasonably safe condition … . Stevenson v Saratoga Performing Arts Center…, 517156, 3rd Dept 3-13-14

 

Failure to Make Timely Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Improper Service Constituted a Waiver of the Jurisdictional Defense

The Third Department determined defendant’s (O’Neill’s) jurisdictional defense based on improper service was waived by the failure to move for judgment on that ground within 60 days:

Plaintiff did not effectuate proper substituted service on O’Neill because she failed to mail a copy of the pleadings to O’Neill after the process server left a copy with the president of Hafner Valuation at O’Neill’s place of business (see CPLR 308 [2]). Despite the error in service and defendants having raised it in their answer,O’Neill waived his objection on this ground by failing to move for judgment on that basis within 60 days of serving the answer (see CPLR 3211 [e]…).  Sutton v Hafner Valuation Group Inc, 516779, 3rd Dept 3-6-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Driver’s Gesture to Turn Was Proximate Cause of Collision

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant driver’s (Slawiendski’s) gesture indicating a second defendant driver (Shaut) could make a left turn in front of him was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s collision with the turning car:

…[T]he duty of a driver to act reasonably in signaling to another driver that he or she will yield the rightof-way or that the other driver may safely proceed is owed not just to the driver being signaled, but also to other motorists and passengers … . Here, there is evidence that Slawienski acted unreasonably based upon his testimony that he failed to check for traffic in his rear or side view mirrors before signaling to Shaut.  However, a signaling driver is liable only when the gesture is a proximate cause of a subsequent collision – an inquiry that “depends on whether the recipient of the gesture relied on it as an indication that the path was safe and clear” … . Proximate cause is generally a factual issue for a jury to resolve … . Here, Shaut testified that he relied on Slawienski’s signal in deciding to make the turn and would not have done so if not for the gesture; further, Slawienski testified that Shaut did not stop as he crossed into plaintiff’s lane, suggesting that Shaut relied on the gesture to indicate that the lane was clear. However, Shaut testified that he knew that he was separately obliged to check the safety of plaintiff’s lane; he stated that he slowed or stopped his vehicle before entering plaintiff’s lane to look for oncoming traffic, but did not see the motorcycle until after the collision. This evidence neither establishes as a matter of law that Shaut fully relied upon Slawienski’s gesture nor that his decision to proceed into plaintiff’s lane was entirely independent … . Thus, there are factual issues for the jury regarding the degree of Shaut’s reliance on Slawienski’s gesture, whether Shaut independently checked the safety of plaintiff’s lane, and if he did, whether the check was a superseding act severing the causal link between the gesture and the collision… . Nasadoski v Shaut, 516374, 3rd Dept 3-6-14

 

, ,

Mistakes Leading to Miscalculation of Defendant’s Sentence Privileged

The Third Department determined plaintiff's false imprisonment action against the state was properly dismissed.  Although there were errors resuliting in the erroneous calculation of defendant's sentence, the erroneous actions were privileged:

In order to state a claim for false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant was required to demonstrate that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged … . As there is no dispute as to the first three elements, we are left to consider whether defendant's confinement of claimant indeed was privileged.

As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated, “[a] detention, otherwise unlawful, is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction” … .Here, regardless of the validity of the sentence actually imposed, the asserted ambiguity in the sentence and commitment order or the reasonableness of [Department of Correctional Services'] interpretation thereof, there is no question that the sentencing court had jurisdiction over claimant, and the record does not otherwise suggest that the underlying process was defective. Accordingly, we are satisfied that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that its detention of claimant was privileged. * * *

Although DOCS' determination, which was predicated upon its analysis of the relevant sentencing statutes and claimant's criminal history, proved to be erroneous, that error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant's claim of privilege … . Simply put, DOCS – in treating claimant's sentence as running consecutively to his prior undischarged term of imprisonment – acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence of jurisdiction, and its conduct therefore was privileged … . Hudson v State of New York, 516333, 3rd Dept 5-6-14

 

“Mail Watch” Should Not Have Been Authorized/Determination Based on Contents of Inmate’s Mail Annulled

The Third Department annulled at determination which resulted from the interception of the inmate’s mail, finding that the “mail watch” authorization was invalid:

A superintendent of a correctional facility may authorize a mail watch only where “there is a reason to believe that the provisions of any department directive, rule or regulation have been violated, that any applicable state or[f]ederal law has been violated, or that such mail threatens the safety, security, or good order of a facility or the safety or well being of any person” (7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]). Where a mail watch has been authorized, such authorization must “set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action” (7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]). Here, the Superintendent’s authorization failed to set forth any facts upon which its issuance was based, stating only that it was based upon a request of a deputy superintendent “to investigate activity that may jeopardize the safety and security of the facility.” Inasmuch as the authorization was not in compliance with the applicable regulation, it was invalid and the resulting mail watch was not properly authorized … . Mena v Fischer, 516758, 3rd Dept 3-6-14

 

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