You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Behavior Did Not Warrant Removal from Hearing

In annulling the determination because the inmate’s behavior did not warrant his removal from the hearing, the Third Department wrote:

It is well settled that “[a]n inmate has a fundamental right to be present during a prison disciplinary hearing unless he or she is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” … . Here, petitioner objected to the continuation of the hearing after the prior Hearing Officer’s recusal.  It appears that the Hearing Officer became frustrated with petitioner’s unwillingness to move forward and warned him that he could be removed. Petitioner then ceased objecting, entered his pleas of not guilty to the charges and stated that he wished to put “a lot” on the record.  However, he then twice asked a question that the Hearing Officer apparently deemed irrelevant, and was abruptly removed from the hearing.  Under these circumstances, we do not find that petitioner’s conduct rose to the level of disruption that warranted excluding him from the remainder of the hearing… . Matter of German v Fischer, 515746, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

Criteria for Expungement Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s annulment of the determination and grant of a new hearing because the recording of the proceeding was incomplete, the Third Department noted that the criteria for expungemet had not been met:

It is well settled that “[e]xpungement will be ordered only where there has been a showing that ‘(1) the challenged disciplinary determination is not supported by substantial evidence . . .; (2) there has been a violation of one of the inmate’s fundamental due process rights, as enunciated in Wolff v McDonnell (418 US 539 [1974]); or (3) other equitable considerations dictate expungement of the record rather than remittal for a new hearing'”… None of the foregoing situations is implicated here.  Matter of Barnes v Fischer, 515146, 3rd Dept 7-25-13 

 

,

Depraved Indifference Murder of Child Count Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based On the Grand Jury Evidence In Spite of Difficulty of Proving the Count at Trial

The Third Department determined the trial court should not have dismissed the count of the indictment which charged defendant with depraved indifference murder of a child.  While acknowledging the prosecution may have difficulty proving the charge at trial, the court determined that a logical inference from the grand-jury proof was that the injuries defendant inflicted on the child were immediately and obviously very serious and defendant callously delayed getting help while minimizing his conduct and the seriousness of the injuries.  In explaining the general criteria for the sufficiency of grand jury evidence, the court wrote:

In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, courts view the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and determine only whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient … . “In the context of grand jury proceedings, ‘legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt’… .  “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes” … .  “[I]f the prosecutor has established a prima facie case, the evidence is legally sufficient even though its quality or weight may be so dubious as to preclude indictment or conviction pursuant to other requirements” … .  People v Waite, 105416, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking Answer

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s striking of defendant’s answer as a penalty for defendant’s not appearing at a pre-trial conference as ordered:

Generally speaking, and based upon sound underlying policy, there is a strong judicial preference for determination of issues upon the merits ….  Consistent with this policy, defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s directive for in-person appearance at a pretrial conference is not punishable by an order striking the pleadings. The applicable rule instead specifically authorizes the court only to deem a party’s failure to comply  “a default under  CPLR  3404,” which  results in removal  of the case from  the trial calendar (22 NYCRR 202.26 [e]…).  CBA Properties LLC v Global Airlines Services Inc, 515868, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

, ,

Release Precluded Civil Rights Action; No Showing Release Signed Under Duress; Releases Signed Under Duress Are Voidable Not Void

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s civil rights complaint based upon a release signed by the plaintiff.  The court determined that plaintiff’s allegations did not create a question of fact about whether the release was the product of duress.  The relevant legal principles, including the principle that contracts signed under duress are voidable, not void, were explained as follows:

Under  contract law, a signed release that is clear and unambiguous and knowingly and voluntarily entered into is binding on the parties unless cause exists to invalidate it on one of the recognized bases for setting aside written agreements, including illegality, fraud, mutual mistake, duress or coercion… .  A party such as plaintiff seeking to void a written contract on the ground of duress must meet her burden of demonstrating “(1) threats of an unlawful act by one party which (2) compel[] performance by the other party of an act which it had a legal right to abstain from performing”… .

Moreover, contracts executed under duress are, at most, voidable and not void and, by accepting and retaining the benefits of the second agreement for almost two years and not timely repudiating it, plaintiff affirmed or ratified that agreement, which is binding and no longer voidable on the grounds of duress, which objections are waived… .  Nelson v Lattner Enterprises of NY…, 515927, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

Question of Fact Raised About Defendant’s Knowledge of Horse’s Vicious Propensities

The Third Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment in a case where plaintiff was injured by defendant’s horse.  Plaintiff was knocked unconscious when defendant’s horse “head swatted” him.  The Third Department determined the deposition testimony of a neighbor raised a question of fact about whether defendant was aware of the horse’s aggressive behavior.  The Third Department explained the relevant legal principles as follows:

As a general rule, an owner of a domestic animal  will only be  held  strictly liable for the  harm  caused  by such animal if he or she “‘knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities'”  Therefore, on his motion for summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of establishing that he had no prior knowledge that [his horse] had any vicious propensity ….  It is now well established that a vicious propensity is “the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” …, and includes behavior that would  not necessarily be  considered  dangerous  or ferocious if those behaviors reflect a “‘proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm'” … However, normal  or typical equine behavior is  insufficient  to  establish  a  vicious  propensity … . Carey… v Schwab, 516021, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

Guidelines With Pre-Authorized Specific Procedure List for Medical Tests and Services Held Valid; Variance Procedure for Tests and Services Not on List Held Valid

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined the Medical Treatment Guidelines created pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law section 13-a (5) were valid and enforceable.  The Guidelines were adopted as the standard of care for all medical treatment for workplace injuries rendered on or after December 1, 2010, relating to injuries to the back, neck, shoulder and knee. The Guidelines include a preauthorized-specific-procedure-list for many common medical tests and services which do not require prior authorization. The regulations set forth a variance procedure in which treatment providers may request approval for medical care or testing that is not preapproved upon a showing that the treatment is appropriate and medically necessary.  In the case before the court, the denial of claimant’s request for a variance for acupuncture treatment was affirmed.  The dissenting justice argued there was “no support for the majority’s position that the [Guidelines] were intended to create a preordained and exhaustive list of medically necessary treatments, thereby rendering all non-listed treatments presumptively not medically necessary and creating a presumption that the employers/carriers could ‘rely on’ in fulfilling their statutory obligation to provide medical care to injured claimants.”  Matter of Kigin v State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board…, 515721, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

, ,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid; Counsel Did Not Take Position Adverse to Client Re: Pro Se Motion

In affirming the conviction, the Third Department determined the waiver of appeal (re; the harshness of the sentence) was not valid and defendant’s counsel had not take a position adverse to the defendant with respect to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although defense counsel responded negatively when the court asked if counsel knew of any legal basis for defendant’s motion, the Third Department explained that counsel was unaware of the contents of the motion at the time the court asked about it:

County Court failed to adequately distinguish the right to appeal from  those rights that are automatically forfeited upon  a guilty plea, thus rendering defendant’s appeal waiver invalid…. Moreover, no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was  also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence …. Nor do we  find that the deficiencies in the allocution are cured by defendant’s written appeal waiver…  * * *

…[D]efense counsel’s negative  response  to County  Court’s inquiry  at the outset of the hearing as to whether  “there [was] any  legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion – which counsel had not yet reviewed – and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine  the arguments  that defendant sought to present to the court… .  People v Pimentel, 104070, 3rd Dept 7-11-13

 

Criteria for Constructive Trust Not Met

In affirming Supreme Court’s ruling that plaintiff had failed to establish money given to the defendant (plaintiff’s son) by the plaintiff, originally for the purchase of a lake house, was held by the defendant as a constructive trust, the Third Department explained:

Plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of a constructive trust, which include a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon and  unjust enrichment….    Although plaintiff contends that there was a relationship of trust at the time the money was given to defendant based on the familial relationship and plaintiff’s belief that, despite his criminal history, defendant had  turned his life around,  this argument  is contradicted  by plaintiff’s own testimony that he and defendant were “never too friendly,” his relationship with defendant was  “at arm’s length” and he felt defendant was “always . . . hiding something from me.”    Furthermore, there was no indication that defendant attempted to take advantage of plaintiff’s trust by encouraging the transfer or that plaintiff was under defendant’s influence in any way.    The record supports Supreme Court’s finding that the idea of buying a lake house was eventually abandoned and the money was given to defendant for placement in a mutual fund account in his name alone by plaintiff, who had significantly more education, business and  financial experience  than  defendant.  Garcia v Garcia, 515582, 3rd Dept 7-11-13

 

, , ,

Wage Parity Law Which Conditions Medicaid Reimbursement Upon Paying Home Health Services Workers a Minimum Wage Is Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, the Third Department determined the Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law section 3614-c), which conditions Medicaid reimbursement upon paying home health services providers a minimum wage as set in New York City’s Living Wage Law, was constitutional. The court rejected arguments that: (1) the Legislature improperly delegated its authority to New York City; (2) the law improperly incorporated the Living Wage Law by reference; (3) extending the New York City law violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (5) the statute violated the substantive due process requirements.  Matter of Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc v State of New York, 515737, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

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