You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Hearsay Insufficient to Support Revocation of Substance Abuse Counselor Credential

The Third Department determined the hearsay evidence used to justify the revocation of petitioner’s credential as a Credentialed Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Counselor (CASAC) was insufficient:

Substantial evidence has long been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… .  In this regard, an administrative determination may be based entirely upon hearsay evidence …– provided such evidence is “sufficiently relevant and probative” … or “sufficiently reliable” … and is not otherwise “seriously controverted” … . * * *

Although we have no doubt that the investigator conducted thorough interviews with many of those involved and accurately related – in both his report and his corresponding testimony – the specific information gleaned therefrom, we cannot say – given the particular facts of this case – that the hearsay proof adduced at the hearing was “the kind of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs”… .  Matter of Doctor v NYS Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services…, 516209, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

Family Members Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Care-Provider Exercised Undue Influence Over Decedent

The Third Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate.  The respondents failed to raise a question of fact about whether the decedent’s care-provider had exercised undue influence over the decedent.  The care-provider, by the terms of the will, was allowed to live in decedent’s home rent-free for a designated period after decedent’s death.  The rest of decedent’s estate went to organizations decedent was affiliated with, nothing was allotted to respondent family members:

To establish undue influence, respondents were required to demonstrate that decedent “was actually constrained to act against [her] own free will and desire by identifying the motive, opportunity and acts allegedly constituting the influence, as well as when and where such acts occurred” … .  The influence asserted must rise to the level of “a moral coercion” …, and “[m]ere speculation and conclusory allegations, without specificity as to precisely where and when the influence was actually exerted, are insufficient to raise an issue of fact” … .

Here, even assuming that respondents’ proof was sufficient to establish that [the care-provider] had motive and opportunity to influence decedent’s testamentary dispositions, respondents failed to demonstrate that House actually exercised undue influence with respect to the distribution of decedent’s assets.  By all accounts, decedent was a very intelligent, private and strongwilled woman who “ran her life the way she wanted to run it.” Matter of Stafford…, 516429, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Tax Lien Foreclosure Upheld Despite Alleged Lack of Notice

The Third Department determined a motion to vacate a tax lien foreclosure was properly denied in the face of claimed lack of notice, finding the motion untimely and finding the statutory notice requirements had been met and the owner had been afforded due process:

Respondent’s motion to vacate was untimely as it was brought more than one month after entry of the judgment of foreclosure (see RPTL 1131…).  Notably, “the statute of limitations set forth in RPTL 1131 applies even where, as here, the property owner asserts that he or she was not notified of the foreclosure proceeding”… . …

“[N]otice shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States postal service within [45] days after being mailed,” and the foreclosing agent is required to seek an alternative mailing address for the property owner only when both such notices are returned (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] …).  Accordingly, inasmuch as the notice sent by first class mail to respondent at the 8th Avenue address was not returned, such notice was deemed received …, and “petitioner was not obligated to take additional steps to notify respondent of the foreclosure proceeding”… .

…”[D]ue process does not require actual notice by the property owner, only reasonable efforts to provide notice under the circumstances” …, and petitioner discharged its obligations in this regard by fulfilling the requirements of RPTL 1125 … .  Finally, we note that”[o]wnership carries responsibilities” …, which includes an obligation to apprise the tax enforcing officer of a change in address (see RPTL 1125 [1] [d]…).  There is nothing in the record to suggest that respondent fulfilled that obligation here.  Simply put, “respondent was responsible for protecting his ownership interests and chargeable with notice that failure to pay his taxes could result in foreclosure” … . Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by County of Sullivan…, 516658, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Broker Entitled to Commission Based Upon Defendant’s Refusal of a Purchase Offer/Copy of Purchase Offer Properly Put in Evidence

The Third Department determined plaintiff real estate broker was entitled to a commission because he presented a willing buyer at the price agreed to in the listing agreement and one of the property owners, the defendant, refused the offer because he no longer wanted to sell. In the course of the decision, the court noted that a copy of the purchase offer was properly received in evidence (in the absence of the original):

“In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his [or her] commission when he [or she] produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller” … . The listing agreement identified the parties, the property, the asking price, and an agreement to pay an 8% commission in exchange for plaintiff producing a buyer.  This was sufficient information to create a valid listing agreement … .  Defendant asserts that the listing agreement is invalid because not all of the property owners signed it … .  However, a contract to pay compensation to a real estate broker or salesperson need not be in writing to be effective (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]).  …

Supreme Court did not err in accepting into evidence a copy of a second version of the offer to purchase.  Although the best evidence rule “requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven” …, secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original document may be admitted where the court finds a sufficient explanation for the absence of the original, that the proponent “has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith,” and that the secondary evidence accurately reflects the original … .  Posson … v Przestrzelski, 516677, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Reimbursement Cuts for Profit-Making Nursing Homes Did Not Violate Takings or Equal Protection Clauses

The Third Department determined the plaintiffs—profit-making businesses operating nursing homes—did not raise questions of fact about whether reductions in Medicaid reimbursement rates instituted in 2011 violated the Takings Clause and the Equal Protection Clause:

…”‘[W]here a service provider voluntarily participates in a price-regulated program or activity, there is no legal compulsion to provide service and thus there can be no taking'”… . * * *

Given [the] fundamental difference in the underlying economic purposes and incentives of proprietary and voluntary facilities, they are not similarly situated as they must be to sustain plaintiffs’ equal protection claim … . Bay Park Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation LLC v Shah, 516654, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

Object’s Fall of 1 ½ Feet Constituted Physically Significant Elevation Differential for Purposes of Requiring a Safety Device Pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1)

In this 240(1) action, the Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it found that the accident did not arise form a physically significant elevation differential.  Plaintiff was struck by part of a roll carrier (re: a roll of roofing membrane) after the roll fell to the roof. Prior to the incident the roll carrier had been positioned about a foot and a half above the roof:

In determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimis, we must take into account “‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … .  Here, for purposes of defendants’ motion, plaintiff established that a membrane roll weighing between 600 and 800 pounds was hoisted by the roll carrier to a height of approximately 1½ feet off the roof’s surface at the time of the accident.  In our view, despite the relatively short distance that the membrane roll fell, it constituted a significant elevation differential given its substantial weight and the powerful force it generated when it fell, so as to require a safety device as set forth in Labor Law § 240 (1) … .  Accordingly, Supreme Court should not have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action on this basis.  Jackson v Heitman Funds/191 Colonie LLC. 516248, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Evidence Relevant to a Reason to Fabricate is Never Collateral

The Third Department noted that the trial court erred (harmless) when it prohibited defendant from questioning witnesses against him (Corsi and Beebe) about grievances and a lawsuit defendant had filed.  Evidence of a witness’ reason to fabricate should not have been excluded as collateral:

…County Court improperly denied his motion requesting permission to question Corsi and Beebe about prior notices of discipline, grievances filed by defendant and defendant’s pending federal lawsuit … .  The court concluded that the issues were collateral and would be precluded unless the door were opened by a witness’s testimony reflecting bias or hostility toward defendant.  While “trial courts have broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters,” “extrinsic proof tending to establish a reason to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground”… .  People v Hughes, 105838, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

County Court Should Have Ordered a Hearing Re: Defendant’s 440 Motion to Vacate His Conviction—There Was Evidence Outside the Record that Required Development—Defendant Suffered from a Mental Illness and Was Taking Medications which May Have Affected His Judgment at the Time of the Plea Proceedings

The Third Department determined County Court erred when it did not order a hearing to determine defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea).  The motion, as well as other evidence in the record (i.e., the presentence report), indicated defendant suffered from a mental illness and was taking medications that may have clouded his judgment when the guilty plea was entered:

Defendant presented further evidence of his mental illness and use of psychotropic medications upon his CPL 440.10 motion. In his own affidavit, defendant recounted experiencing extreme anxiety leading to his hospitalization, and stated that the medications he was taking made him feel intoxicated and in a haze during the plea and sentencing proceedings.  He also submitted the affidavit of a forensic nurse consultant, who indicated that the side effects of the medications that defendant was taking included drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue and abnormal thinking, and noted that Zoloft was not recommended for individuals with bipolar disorder.  The nurse opined that the combination and quantity of medications that defendant was taking at the time of his plea and sentencing “most certainly” would have affected his cognitive ability to understand the proceedings.

Although postjudgment motions may often be determined upon the record and submissions, a hearing is required where facts outside the record are material and would entitle a defendant to relief (see CPL 440.30 [5]…). Here, the proof reveals that defendant suffers from a mental illness and was taking psychotropic medications, and further development of the record is required to determine the extent to which his mental capacity was impaired and whether this rendered him unable to enter a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.  A hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion is the appropriate vehicle for collecting further evidence on this issue and determining whether defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated as a result … .  Accordingly, we find that County Court erred in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, and conclude that this matter must be remitted to County Court for this purpose. People v Hennessey, 105342, 3rd Dept  11-27-13

 

,

The Prosecutor’s Summation Was Filled With Impermissible Statements and Suggestions, Requiring Reversal of Defendant’s Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because of the prosecutor’s impermissible statements in summation. The prosecutor vouched for his witnesses, suggested that in order to believe the defendant the jury would have to believe there was a conspiracy to convict him, involving the trial judge, and effectively shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

During the course of his summation, the prosecutor, among other things, repeatedly vouched for the credibility of the People’s witnesses (“He’s telling the truth”).  Such comments clearly are impermissible … .  We reach a similar conclusion regarding the prosecutor’s statement that if the jury was inclined to believe defendant, he had “a bridge in Brooklyn [to] sell” as well … .  These errors were compounded by the prosecutor’s completely speculative comment that “the only reason that [defendant] wasn’t involved in the other robbery that [Young] and [Ervin] committed” not long after the attack upon the victim “was because he couldn’t be there with them” – suggesting that had defendant not been in custody at the time that the subsequent robbery was committed, he would have participated in that crime as well.  Although the prosecutor’s comment in this regard undeniably was improper …, it paled in comparison to his statement that, in order to believe defendant’s version of events, the jury had to accept that there was a far-reaching conspiracy to convict defendant — one that included the trial judge.  Specifically, the prosecutor stated, “[H]ere’s what you’ll have to find to find that the defendant is not guilty.  This is what you have to believe.  You have to believe there was a conspiracy against [defendant,] that every single one of the witnesses that came in here went over there, put their hand on the Bible, swore to tell the truth, and then lied and made up a story, and that the detectives from the Albany Police Department . . . got together and risked their entire careers and got together with . . . Ervin and . . . Young to frame [defendant].  Then they got me involved to continue prosecuting the case, and then they got Judge Herrick and Judge Breslin to go along with these cooperation agreements and allowed them to come in here and lie.”

The problem with the foregoing statement is three-fold. First, the comment made by the prosecutor relative to what the jury would need to believe in order to find that defendant was not guilty arguably shifted the burden of proof from the People to defendant.  Additionally, the prosecutor’s reference to a conspiracy in no way constitutes fair comment upon the evidence adduced.  Although defendant indeed testified that Young and Ervin were not being truthful, he never suggested that the People’s witnesses, among others, were engaged in a conspiracy to wrongfully convict him, and there is nothing in the record to support such a claim.  Finally, there is no question that one of the jury’s key roles in a criminal trial is to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testify on behalf of the People and, in those instances where the defendant takes the stand or otherwise presents witnesses in support of his or her defense, to weigh the credibility of the People’s witnesses vis-a-vis the defendant’s witnesses.  Such a “credibility contest” is entirely permissible, and there is nothing inherently prejudicial about that evaluative process.  Here, however, the prosecutor’s commentary set up a far different credibility contest by suggesting to the jury that it could believe defendant only if it also believed that the trial judge, among others, had permitted the People’s witnesses to lie to the jury and/or otherwise engaged in some form of misconduct.  Simply put, the prosecutor’s conduct in pitting defendant against the very judge who had presided over the course of the trial was inexcusable and, despite defense counsel’s prompt objection and County Court’s appropriate curative instruction, the prejudicial impact of that conduct cannot be ignored. People v Forbes, 104771, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

 

 

Supreme Court Should Not Have Treated Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss as Motion for Summary Judgment

The Third Department determined Supreme Court erred in treating respondents’ pre-answer motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment:

Generally, a summary judgment motion is premature prior to the service of an answer … .  However, a court may treat a pre-answer motion as one for summary judgment if it “give[s] prior notice to the parties or, through their submissions, the parties themselves . . . demonstrate an intent to ‘deliberately chart[] a summary judgment course'” … .  There is no indication in the record before us – nor do the parties assert – that Supreme Court provided any notice of its intention to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Thus, the question before us distills to whether the parties charted a summary judgment course by laying bare their proof…. .  [P]etitioners clearly did not lay bare all of their proof … .  … Under these circumstances, Supreme Court erred in treating respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment.  Dashmaw v Town of Peru, 516581, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

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