You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Purchaser of a Firearm is an Accomplice of the Seller for Corroboration Purposes

The Third Department determined the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a witness against the defendant (Lewandowski) was an accomplice as a matter of law (requiring corroboration of his testimony) was reversible error. Lewandowski bought a firearm from the defendant and therefore was an accomplice of the seller for corroboration purposes:

“A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22 [1]). Pursuant to CPL 60.22, an accomplice is a person who “may reasonably be considered to have participated in . . . [t]he offense charged; or . . . [a]n offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2] [emphasis added]). Notably, the definition of an accomplice for the purpose of the corroboration rule differs significantly from the definition of an accomplice for purposes of accomplice criminal liability (…compare CPL 60.22 with Penal Law § 20.00). CPL 60.22 broadens the definition of an accomplice “‘in order to provide a more equitable, operable and consistent standard for the courts in determining when the requirement of corroboration is applicable'”… . Thus, to be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness “must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial” … .

Here, the evidence established that Lewandowski did not have a license to possess the handgun he bought from defendant. Thus, although Lewandowski could not be subject to prosecution for criminal sale of a firearm, he was potentially subject to prosecution for – and was, in fact, charged with – criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree since he unlawfully possessed the weapon as soon as he made the purchase (see Penal Law §§ 265.01 [1]; 265.20 [a] [3]). Just as the purchaser in a drug sale is, as a matter of law, an accomplice of the seller for corroboration purposes …, here Lewandowski was an accomplice as a matter of law with respect to defendant’s weapon sale and possession charges since he could have been (and was) charged with a crime “based upon some of the same facts or conduct” upon which the charges against defendant were based (CPL 60.22 [2] [b]…). County Court was therefore required to instruct the jury that Lewandowski was an accomplice as a matter of law as to those charges, and that defendant could not be convicted on Lewandowski’s testimony absent corroborative evidence… . People v Medeiros, 105941, 3rd Dept 4-3-13

 

Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not consider the appropriate factors before continuing with the trial without the defendant’s presence:

“A defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom during his or her trial is one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Federal and New York Constitutions, and by statute” … . Even where, as here, “a defendant has waived the right to be present at trial by not appearing after being apprised of the right and the consequences of nonappearance, trial in absentia is not thereby automatically authorized”… . Rather, it must also appear from the record that the trial court considered “all appropriate factors” before proceeding in defendant’s absence, “including the possibility that defendant could be located within a reasonable period of time, the difficulty of rescheduling [the] trial and the chance that evidence will be lost or witnesses will disappear” … . As the Court of Appeals has instructed, “[i]n most cases the simple expedient of adjournment pending execution of a bench warrant could provide an alternative to trial in absentia unless, of course, the prosecution can demonstrate that such a course of action would be totally futile” … .

Here, the record fails to demonstrate that Supreme Court considered any of the appropriate factors. When defendant failed to appear on the morning that trial was scheduled to commence, defense counsel represented to the court that he had no information as to defendant’s whereabouts and requested an adjournment. Supreme Court declined to grant an adjournment, issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest and pronounced its decision to proceed immediately to trial. People v June, 105292, 3rd Dept 4-3-14 

 

,

Elements of Prima Facie Tort Explained—Disinterested Malevolence Not Demonstrated

The Third Department, in finding the allegations insufficient to make out the cause of action, explained the elements of prima facie tort:

“To sufficiently allege a cause of action for prima facie tort . . . a plaintiff must plead the intentional infliction of harm without justification or excuse, which results in special damages, by one or more acts which would otherwise be lawful” … . Moreover, “there is no recovery in prima facie tort unless malevolence is the sole motive for the defendant’s otherwise lawful act” … . The act “must be a malicious one unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to injury and damage of another” … . Even egregious conduct by an attorney during the course of representing a client that aids to some degree the attorney’s client or the attorney’s practice generally will not satisfy the disinterested malevolence requirement of a prima facie tort, because such conduct is not motivated solely to harm the defendant … .

… While plaintiffs’ pleadings are liberally interpreted in the context of a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, such liberal standard “will not save allegations that consist of bare legal conclusions or factual claims that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence or are inherently incredible”  Wiggins & Kopko LLP v Masson, 517155, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

, , ,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cause of Action Stated Against Actuary

After sorting out professional malpractice claims (negligence—three-year S/L) from breach of contract claims (intentional—six year S/L), the Third Department explained the elements of a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action in the context of actuarial services (provided by SGRisk):

Actuaries are not considered professionals for the purpose of the shortened statute of limitations applicable to malpractice claims … . Despite not being deemed professionals in that context, actuaries can still develop relationships of trust and confidence sufficient to give rise to a fiduciary duty. Courts must conduct a fact specific inquiry to determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists based on confidence on one side and “resulting superiority and influence on the other” … . Plaintiff alleged that SGRisk “held itself out as being a skilled and competent actuarial” firm that “adhered to accepted professional standards,” that it rendered services for the trusts’ benefit, provided advice and created “a relationship of trust and confidence between” itself and the trusts. Plaintiff also alleged that SGRisk agreed to exercise “good faith and undivided loyalty” when determining appropriate valuation of the trusts’ future claims liability and the trusts reasonably relied on this, placing confidence in SGRisk that it would accurately produce truthful annual actuarial reports with correct estimates of future claims reserves. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that SGRisk breached the duty by knowingly and consistently underestimating the claims liabilities and necessary reserves and failing to identify dangerous underfunding … .  New York State Workers’ Compensation Board… v SGRisk LLC, 517387, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

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