You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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

 

Employer Policy Re: Firing of Employees Injured in Preventable Accidents Was Discriminatory

The Third Department determined a policy which required probationary employees injured in a preventable accident to be fired, but did not require the firing of uninjured probationary employees who were observed working unsafely, improperly served to dissuade injured employees from seeking Workers’ Compensation:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 prohibits an employer from discriminating against  an  employee  because  that employee  either claimed or attempted  to claim workers’ compensation  benefits….  In enacting Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, the Legislature intended “to insure that a claimant [could] exercise his [or her] rights under the [Workers’] Compensation Law  . . . without fear that doing so [might] endanger the continuity of [his or her] employment… .

…[T]he policy …has a discernible impact upon probationary employees who are injured in work-related accidents, i.e., employees who  potentially could seek workers’ compensation  benefits.    The policy  effectively categorizes probationary employees into two groups: those who violate safety rules but are not injured, and those who violate safety rules and  are injured – with only the latter group automatically forfeiting their right to work  for the employer….   Such a policy dissuades those probationary employees who are injured in the course of their employment and wish to remain employed from reporting their injury and pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, which, in turn, runs counter to the Legislature’s intended purpose of insuring that employees  can exercise  their rights under  the  compensation  statutes  “without fear that doing  so may  endanger  the continuity of [their] employment”… .  Matter of Rodriguez v C& S Wholesale Grocers, Inc, 516124, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

Disability Pre-dated Work at World Trade Center—Worker Entitled to Workers’ Compensation

In reversing a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board which ruled the employer was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund on the ground that the employee’s lung disease was solely related to work at the World Trade Center, the Third Department wrote:

[The treating doctor] repeatedly expressed  his  opinion  that claimant’s interstitial lung disease was  related to both his exposure at the WTC site and certain exposures throughout his career with the employer, which included exposure to asbestos. …Thus, although reimbursement pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) may be denied when a work-related injury is the sole  cause  of  a  permanent  disability…, there is no medical evidence present here to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s disability was solely caused by his WTC  site exposure and, therefore, the Fund was inappropriately discharged… . Matter of Surianello, 515055, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

Employee’s Use of Personal Checking Account Did Not Amount to Misconduct

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s denial of benefits finding that, although the practice of depositing money in the employee’s bank account for reimbursement to her and others for out of pocket expenses violated company policy, it did not amount to misconduct:

Even  where  an  employee  has been  fired for legitimate reasons, the “behavior may  fall short of misconduct and, therefore, he  or she  may  still be  entitled to receive benefits”….   Although a knowing violation of an employer’s established policies that has a detrimental effect on  the employer’s interests can  constitute disqualifying  misconduct  …, we find that claimant’s misconduct  in this case did not rise to a disqualifying    level.    While we do not quarrel with the Board’s finding that claimant violated the employer’s established policies, which  provided a basis for terminating her employment, the hearing testimony reveals that claimant’s actions were  in keeping  with a longstanding practice that was at least partially condoned by her former supervisor and were necessary because claimant did not have  check  writing authority… . Matter of Lopresti, 516109, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

Employer’s Late Request for a Hearing Could Not Be Excused

In affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that an employer’s request for a hearing was untimely, the Third Department noted there was no provision allowing an extension of time:

“Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (2), an employer has 30 days from the mailing or personal delivery of a contested determination  to  request a  hearing”….  The employer acknowledged receiving the determination, but was unsure of the date of such receipt. Pursuant to the unrebutted presumption found in 12 NYCRR 461.2, the determination was deemed mailed on January 12, 2009 and received by the employer within five days thereafter. Although the employer contends that the admittedly late written request for a hearing was due to law office failure, “the statutory time period in which to request a hearing is to be strictly construed, and the statute contains no  provision permitting an extension of time in which an employer can request a hearing”… . Matter of Agarwal, 515007, 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