You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

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

 

Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination by Both Attesting Witnesses Did Not Require Dismissal of Petition to Admit Will to Probate

The Third Department determined that Surrogate’s Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the petition.  Dismissal was sought because both attesting witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination:

To establish that the will was duly executed, petitioner was required to produce the attesting witnesses for examination unless the law permitted the court to dispense with their testimony (see SCPA 1404 [1]).  The applicable statutes do not address the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination by attesting witnesses, but this Court has found that such an invocation is akin to a failure to recall the events surrounding a will’s execution and, thus, that a will may be admitted to probate pursuant to SCPA 1405 (3) when one witness invokes the privilege, based on the testimony of the other witness or witnesses and sufficient other proof … .

Respondents contend that, as both attesting witnesses invoked the privilege here, the requirement in SCPA 1405 (3) for the testimony of “at least [one] other attesting witness” was not satisfied.   However, the Court of Appeals has held that SCPA 1405 (3) was not intended to “revolutionize[] prior practice” by requiring at least one attesting witness to testify in favor of a will … .  Instead, in holding that a will may be admitted to probate under SCPA 1405 (3) when no attesting witness recalls its execution, the Court found that – consistent with prior law – the statute requires attesting witnesses to be “examined, and all relevant testimony elicited” … but does not impose requirements upon the substance of their testimony.  * * * The issue thus distills to whether there was sufficient other evidence to establish a prima facie case of due execution, and we find that there was. Matter of Estate of Buchting…, 516257, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Property Owned by Religious Group Entitled to Real Property Tax Exemption

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and determined a religious group (Cybeline Revival) had demonstrated its property was used primarily for religious and charitable purposes, and, therefore, the group was entitled to a real property tax exemption:

…[P]etitioner met its burden to demonstrate that it uses the property primarily for its religious and charitable purposes … .  In accord with Supreme Court’s determination, respondents contend that the property was used primarily to provide cooperative housing because, in essence, the few adherents of the Cybeline Revival have in effect just continued the property’s former residential use… .  However, these arguments contend that there is some threshold amount of activity and public benefit that must be demonstrated, which confuses the standard that is simply whether the property was used primarily for religious and charitable purposes … .  The testimony established that the Cybeline Revival stresses communal living among its adherents, as well as providing hospitality and charity to those in need, and the members consider this property the home of their faith … .  They also conduct religious and charitable activities throughout the property on a regular basis.  Accordingly, petitioner has satisfied the legal requirements in order to receive a real property tax exemption for 2009, 2010 and 2011 … .  Matter of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater Inc v McCoy…, 515598, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Court Should Have Instructed Jury on Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault in this Legal Malpractice Action

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have charged the jury on comparative fault in a legal malpractice action.  The client’s first priority security interest in equipment and vehicles had not been protected. The client alleged the attorney’s failure to file a UCC-1 and DMV liens constituted malpractice. With respect to the requested comparative-fault jury instruction, the Third Department explained:

 We agree with defendants’ contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to charge the jury regarding plaintiff’s comparative fault.  The culpable conduct of a plaintiff client may be asserted as an affirmative defense in a legal malpractice action in mitigation of damages (see CPLR 1411, 1412…).  Here, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff could reasonably have been expected to understand the underlying obligations and formalities… .  Hattem v Smith, 516183, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

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