You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Planning Board’s Determination Subdivision Was Exempt from Conservation Measures Under “Grandfathering” Laws Upheld

The Third Department determined the town planning board’s approval of a final subdivision plan was proper.  The petitioners challenged the approval arguing, in part, that the town’s repeated renewal of grandfathering provisions (under which the subdivision plan was approved) was unlawful. Under the grandfathering provisions, the subdivision was deemed exempt from certain conservation measures. The Third Department disagreed:

“A town’s zoning determination is entitled to a strong presumption of validity; therefore, one who challenges such a determination bears a heavy burden of demonstrating, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt, that the determination was arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise unlawful'” … .  While “[z]oning laws must be enacted in accordance with a comprehensive land use plan” … to establish compliance, “respondents need only show that the zoning amendment was adopted for ‘a legitimate governmental purpose'” and the amendment will not be considered arbitrary unless “‘there is no reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved by the regulation and the means used to achieve that end'” … .  … As set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Town’s primary concerns included “ensuring the community remains a great place to live, work, and visit, attracting new industry and employment opportunities, and conserving the area’s natural resources and remaining open spaces.”  The adoption of the initial grandfathering provision clearly evidenced and furthered the Town’s interest in balancing conservation measures with community development and, particularly, the interests of property owners who had, at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted, invested substantial time and money in developing their property in accordance with previous land use laws and zoning requirements … .

Petitioners have not shown that, under the circumstances here, the challenged extensions … were inordinately lengthy as to render them “arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise unlawful”… .  Matter of Birchwood Neighborhood Association v Planning Board of the Town of Colonie, 516284, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

Attorney Penalized for Making a Baseless Request for a Change of Venue

The Third Department upheld the Board’s determination that counsel should be penalized for making a baseless request for a change of venue (closer to the attorney’s office):

Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) provides that “[i]f the [B]oard . . . determines that the proceedings in respect of [a claim for compensation], including any appeals, have been instituted or continued without reasonable ground[,] . . . reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be assessed against an attorney . . . who has instituted or continued proceedings without reasonable grounds.”  We will not disturb the Board’s imposition of a penalty for a violation of that statute so long as the determination is supported by substantial evidence … .  The Board considers a request for change of venue, which is a procedural motion, to constitute a proceeding for purposes of the statute.  Counsel was previously warned that what she cited as a “Board Rule” was actually a provision of a private legal treatise, that it did not accurately reflect the law or Board policy on venue, and that any further change of venue request filed based on that reasoning and citation “will be deemed a proceeding instituted without reasonable grounds and subject to the imposition of penalties under” the statute. Matter of Banton…, 516574, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

It May Be an Abuse of Discretion for the Board to Refuse to Review an Untimely Application Raising a Jurisdictional Issue/Board May Be Barred from Reopening a Closed Claim More than Seven Years After the Accident

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board should have considered the employer’s untimely application for review because the employer raised a jurisdictional issue. The court noted that the Board may barred from reopening closed claims after more than seven years have elapsed since the accident:

“The general rule is that lack of jurisdiction to render a judgment or determination may be asserted at any time . . .” … .  Accordingly, “[w]hile the Board enjoys broad discretion to reject a late application for review,” its refusal to consider an untimely challenge to its jurisdiction may constitute an abuse of discretion … .

While the Board generally retains continuing jurisdiction over workers’ compensation claims, it is barred from reopening a claim “that has been . . .  disposed of without an award after the parties in interest have been given due notice of hearing or hearings and opportunity to be heard and for which no determination was made on the merits, [where there has been] a lapse of seven years from the date of the accident” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 123;…). Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 accordingly acts to “prevent a brand new attempt to prove up a stale claim” …, and deprives the Board of “power and jurisdiction” over such an attempt (Workers’ Compensation Law § 123…).  Given the age of the claim here and the fact that it was marked closed in 1995, the employer plausibly argues that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reopen the present claim.  Matter of VanAusdle, v NYC Police Department, 515592, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of two causes of action brought by a county challenging a “mobility tax” imposed upon counties served by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).  The county alleged the mobility tax was disproportionately high because it did not receive as much service as other counties paying the same amount:

The gravamen of both claims is that the funding provided to the MTA by the County is disproportionately high when compared to the transit services received by it in return.  The MTA undoubtedly provides services to the County and its residents, however, and “[e]ven a ‘flagrant unevenness’ in application” of the financing scheme used to fund the MTA is constitutionally permissible … .

Without more, the fact that the County purportedly receives “fewer benefits from the [MTA] than those received by other[s] . . . is insufficient to warrant the relief requested” … .  Plaintiffs have not pointed to any constitutional or statutory provision that is violated by this alleged misallocation of resources and, as such, the sixth and seventh causes of action present nothing more than a nonjusticiable and impermissible attempt “to substitute judicial oversight for the discretionary management of public business by public officials” … .  Supreme Court thus acted properly in granting the MTA defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Vanderhoff… v Silver, 516180, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

,

Police Officer’s Actions In a Private Dispute Could Not Be Invoked Against Municipality Under Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

The Third Department determined that the doctrine of respondeat superior could not be invoked against a municipality for the actions of an off-duty police officer, even where the officer characterized his actions as an arrest.  Here the police officer injured the plaintiff in a private dispute that had nothing to do with the officer’s official duties:

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … .  Thus, “where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .  Notably, and as is relevant to the matter before us, “[a] municipality cannot be held vicariously liable for acts perpetrated by a member of its police force in the course of engaging in a personal dispute, without any genuine official purpose, whether or not the police officer characterizes such conduct as an arrest or incident to an arrest” … . Stevens v Kellar, 516875, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

,

Department of Health’s Reduction of Medicaid Reimbursement to Nursing Homes Upheld

The Third Department, in a highly technical decision applying the legislature’s mathematical analyses and formulas for the determination of Medicaid reimbursement rates for two nursing homes, determined Supreme Court had erred in annulling the Department of Health’s reduction in reimbursement:

…[W]e agree that the Department was authorized by these laws to reduce both the initial and the final trend factor by one percentage point.  * * * Where, as here, “the statutory language is special or technical and does not consist of common words of clear import, courts will generally defer to the agency’s interpretative expertise unless that interpretation is unreasonable, irrational or contrary to the clear wording of the statute” … .  Additionally, as the law at issue is susceptible to different interpretations, the Department’s past practice is given great weight in determining the law’s meaning … .  Here, the record confirms that the Department has previously amended both the initial and the final CPI pursuant to legislative directives containing the phrase “trend factor projection” … .  We are therefore persuaded that the Department’s interpretation of this law is in accord with its historical practice … .  Moreover, we note that such an interpretation effectuates the Legislature’s intent to achieve cost savings in the Medicaid program… . Matter of Avenue Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Centre…, 516272, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

Family Court Did Not Adequately Consider the Factors Relevant to Mother’s Request for Unsupervised Visitation/Determination of Visitation Improperly Delegated to Father

The Third Department determined Family Court did not adequately consider mother’s request for unsupervised visitation with her children and improperly delegated the court’s authority to determine visitation to the father:

…Both the children and the noncustodial parent have a right to meaningful visitation … .  “[I]n providing for visitation that will be meaningful, the frequency, regularity and quality of the visits must be considered [and] [e]xpanded visitation is generally favorable absent proof that such visitation is inimical to a child’s welfare” … .  While Family Court’s best interests determination in visitation matters is ordinarily accorded great deference …, the court’s consideration of numerous important factors is not apparent here.  These include the children’s ages, needs and wishes; the mother’s progress with substance abuse treatment; the availability of adding supervised time or of additional supervisors of visitation, including family members; the passage of a great length of time with only highly restricted and limited supervised visits (since May 2011, at least); the fact that the visitation facility did not allow the children’s siblings (i.e., the mother’s infant born in June 2011 and adult daughter) or maternal family to attend; the father allowed only two unsupervised visits; the possibility of attaching conditions to unsupervised visitation; and the fact that the mother had been assessed as not posing a risk to herself or others in her treatment.  The foregoing factors, among others, represent a change in circumstances requiring, at the least, a reassessment of the existing visitation restrictions; … .

Moreover, Family Court erred in “delegat[ing] its authority to determine visitation to . . . a parent”… . Matter of Fish v Fish, 514662, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

Father’s Incarceration Justified a Modification of Custody/Sole Custody Awarded to Mother

The Third Department upheld Family Court’s finding father’s incarceration justified a modification of custody and the grant of sole custody to the mother:

Initially, we note the absence of anything in the record to indicate that, but for the father’s incarceration, joint custody would not have continued to be appropriate.  Nonetheless, the father’s incarceration presented logistical restrictions on the parties’ ability to effectively and efficiently communicate with each other, rendered shared physical custody impossible and generally created limitations on the father’s ability to fulfill his obligations as a custodial parent … .  In this regard, the mother testified that, while the father was incarcerated, she made all of the decisions regarding the child and the father did not initiate any contact with her about the child.  Notwithstanding the father’s testimony that he had liberal access to a telephone and email, the mother was unaware that she could call him and testified that it normally took him at least one day to respond to her emails.

Additionally, the father acknowledged that the mother could not reach him while he was at work five days a week for several hours each day and that he had, at times, exhausted his monthly allotted telephone time.  Further, the father was unable to identify the child’s medical provider or teacher, which reflected his limited involvement in the child’s daily life.  After considering the appropriate factors relevant to custody determinations … and according deference to Family Court’s ability to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility …, we find a sound and substantial basis for that court’s determination that an award of sole physical and legal custody to the mother was in the child’s best interests… . Matter of Breitenstein v Stone, 514316, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, , ,

Defendant-Doctor in a Medical Malpractice Action May Be Questioned (by the Plaintiff) As an Expert About His Own Treatment of Plaintiff

The Third Department determined (1) the defendant doctor in a medical malpractice action can be deposed as an expert (by the plaintiff)  with respect to his treatment (the doctor was asked whether the treatment as described in the records deviated from the standard of care); (2) the defendant doctor must answer the question whether he has given any statements to a quality assurance committee, even though the statements themselves would be privileged; (3) substantial changes to deposition testimony in an errata sheet would be allowed, but, based on the substantive nature of the changes, further deposition of the witness was appropriate as well.  With respect to questioning the defendant doctor as an expert about his own treatment, the court wrote:

In the context of a medical malpractice action, the Court of Appeals has held that “a plaintiff . . . is entitled to call the defendant doctor to the stand and question him [or her] both as to his [or her] factual knowledge of the case (that is, as to his [or her] examination, diagnosis, treatment and the like) and, if he [or she] be so qualified, as an expert for the purpose of establishing the generally accepted medical practice in the community” … .  Thus, although “one defendant physician may not be examined before trial about the professional quality of the services rendered by a codefendant physician if the questions bear solely on the alleged negligence of the codefendant and not on the practice of the witness[,] [w]here . . . the opinion sought refers to the treatment rendered by the witness, the fact that it may also refer to the services of a codefendant does not excuse the defendant witness from [being deposed] as an expert” … . Lieblich … v Saint Peter’s Hospital of the City of Albany…, 516736, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

No Standing to Challenge Governmental Action—No Injury-In-Fact and the Type of Potential Injury Alleged Does Not Fall Within the Zone of Interest Underlying the Statute

The Third Department determined that the petitioners, manufacturers of electronically-operated partitions used in school buildings, did not have standing to bring an action compelling the NYC Department of Education to comply with the Education Law (Education Law 409-f) and regulations with respect to the maintenance of the partitions.  The petitioners argued that they are subject to liability if the partitions are not maintained in accordance with the law:

The two-part test for the threshold legal requirement of standing to challenge governmental action requires, first, an injury-in-fact and, second, that the injury “fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision” … .  Petitioners contend that they have been injured in that their employees might get hurt working on improperly maintained safety devices, they are potentially exposed to litigation if a device installed by them is not properly maintained by respondents and causes injury, and their insurance premiums have increased due to heightened exposure to liability.  We agree with Supreme Court that petitioners are essentially asserting a general challenge to respondents’ administration of the relevant statute and regulation …and further that their asserted injuries are too speculative and conjectural to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement … .

Even if a sufficient injury-in-fact was asserted, petitioners also failed to show that they are within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute and regulation. Enacted after the tragic death of a young student crushed by a school partition …, the purpose of the law was to protect primarily students … and not individuals paid to work specifically on the safety devices. … . Matter of Gym Door Repairs, Inc v New York City Department of Education, 516661, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

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