You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

30-Day Time-Limit for Bringing Article 78 Proceeding Pursuant to Public Health Law Runs from Date of Determination, Not Date of Written Notice of Determination

The Third Department upheld the Appalachian Regional Emergency Medical Services Council’s determination that petitioner’s Article 78 action was untimely. Although the proceeding was brought within 30 days of the written notice of the Council’s determination, and the Council had a policy of issuing written notice, the Third Department determined the 30 day time-limit started when the determination was made, not when written notice was received:

Public Health Law  §  3008  (5) requires that an appeal be taken within 30 days of when a regional council makes its determination, and there is no statutory requirement that the determination be  in writing (see Public Health Law § 3008 [4]… .  Matter of Richmondville Volunteer Emergency Squad, Inc v NYS Department of Health…, 515688, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

Nature of Motion to Resettle Explained

In dismissing the appeal from the denial of a motion to resettle or clarify, the Third Department explained the nature of a motion to resettle and some aspects of motions to reargue and renew:

Petitioner’s motion was one to resettle and/or clarify Supreme Court’s prior judgment regarding back pay. Such a motion is designed “not for substantive changes [in, or to amplify a prior decision of, the court], but to correct errors or omissions in form, for clarification or to make the [judgment] conform more accurately to the decision” … .  Such  motions  rest on  the inherent power  of courts to  “‘cure mistakes,  defects  and  irregularities that  do  not  affect substantial rights of [the] parties'” Here, petitioners’ motion  sought, unsuccessfully, to amplify and substantively amend, not merely to clarify, Supreme Court’s prior judgment  … Under established precedent, no appeal lies from the “‘denial of a motion to resettle [or clarify] a substantive portion of an order'” … .Moreover, even were we to view petitioners’ motion as one to reargue, which Supreme Court indicated would have been untimely (see CPLR 2221 [d] [3]), the motion was not “identified specifically as such” (CPLR  2221  [d] [1]), as required, and, in any event, no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue ….  The motion likewise was not denominated as one seeking renewal (see CPLR 2221 [e] [1]) and was not based upon “new facts” or “a change in the law” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.  Matter of Torpey v Town of Colonie, 515902, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

In Court of Claims Case, Inability to Prove State Was Served with Notice of Claim Required Dismissal

In affirming the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because claimant was unable to demonstrate the state was properly served, the Third Department explained the relevant law as follows:

“A claimant seeking to recover damages  for personal injuries caused by  the negligence . . . of an  officer or employee  of [defendant] must  file and  serve a claim or, alternatively, a notice of intention to file such a claim, upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the accrual thereof”….  Both filing with the court and service upon the Attorney General must take place within the relevant statutory period … and, as suits against defendant are permitted only by virtue of its waiver of sovereign immunity and  are in derogation of the common law, “the failure to strictly comply with the filing or service provisions of the Court of Claims Act divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction”….   Notably, “a defect in subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time  on appeal, because it relates to the competence of the court to consider [the] matter”… .and, therefore, such defect “cannot be overlooked or remedied by either waiver or estoppel” … .  Caci v State of New York, 515844, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

BICYCLES

, , ,

Notice of Claim (Pursuant to Court of Claims Act) Not Specific Enough

The Third Department upheld the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because the notice of claim was not specific enough.  In describing the statutory criteria, the Third Department wrote:

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and  the total sum  claimed. “Because suits against [defendant] are allowed only by [defendant’s] waiver of sovereign immunity and  in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”….   Although “absolute exactness” is not required…, the claim must “‘provide a  sufficiently detailed  description  of  the  particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and  extent of its liability'” … .  Morra v State of New York, 515751, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, EMPLOYEE

Question of Fact Re: Duty Owed to Developmentally Disabled Plaintiff for Injury Incurred After Plaintiff Left Facility for a Bus Ride Home

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the defendant, which provided services to developmentally disabled people, the Third Department determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty and whether the breach of that duty was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.  Plaintiff was placed on a bus to take her home from defendant’s premises, after plaintiff’s mother had instructed a respite worker that plaintiff should be driven home.  Plaintiff was struck by a car as she crossed the road after getting off the bus.  The Third Department wrote:

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court that summary judgment in defendant’s favor is precluded by  material issues of fact as to the degree  of care that  defendant  owed  to  plaintiff and  its compliance  with that duty… .  Further, given the record evidence regarding defendant’s knowledge of plaintiff’s abilities and limitations, we  find that it did not establish as a matter of law that its conduct in sending plaintiff to an unsupervised location along a highway was not the proximate cause of her injuries or that plaintiff’s actions  constituted  an  intervening  cause  ….  Warley v Grampp, et al, 515724, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

PEDESTRIANS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

 

,

Appellate Court Can Grant Summary Judgment to Nonappealing Party

In the course of a decision awarding partial summary judgment to the defendant, the Third Department noted that “this Court has the authority to grant summary judgment to a nonappealing party” and did so with regard to a nonappealing defendant as well.  Shree Shiv Shakti Corp… v Khalid Properties, LLC, 515810, 3rd Dept 5-30-13

 

,

Family Court Has Power to Issue Judgment for Child Support Arrearages

After Family Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction to issue a judgment for child support arrearages, the Third Department determined that the court did in fact have jurisdiction.   In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department wrote:

While “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only those powers granted to it by the State Constitution or by statute” …, it is empowered “to determine applications to modify or enforce judgments and orders of support” … .In that regard, petitioner [child support collection unit] is authorized to commence violation proceedings “on behalf of persons” who receive child support pursuant to a court order … .  *  *  *

Petitioner thus acted well within its statutory authority in commencing this proceeding to enforce a child support order that respondent had “fail[ed] to obey,”  and  Family  Court  likewise had  subject  matter  jurisdiction to consider it… .  In the Matter of Chemung County Support Collection Unit…v Greenfield, 515864, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

 

Mother’s Prior Consent to Placement with Sister Did Not Preclude Mother’s Petition for Custody​

The Third Department reversed Family Court’s dismissal of the biological mother’s petition for custody of a child who had been placed with her sister with the biological mother’s consent.  The Third Department determined the mother’s prior consent to custody did not preclude her petition and the respondent, as a nonparent, bore the responsibility to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting her custody of the child.  The Third Department noted:

…[W]hile “no parent has an absolute right to custody of a child . . . it is settled law that, as between a biological parent . . . and a nonbiological parent . . ., the parent has a superior right that cannot  be  denied  unless the nonparent  can establish that the parent has relinquished that right because of ‘surrender, abandonment,  persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances'” … .  In the Matter of Evelyn C …, 514179, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

Imposition of Separate and Contradictory Permanency Goals for Father and Mother Disallowed

In reversing Family Court, the Third Department determined the imposition of separate and contradictory permanency goals violated Family Court Act 1089 [d] [2] [i]:

At the end of the hearing, Family Court continued the children’s placement and approved petitioner’s goal of reunification as to the mother only. As to the father, the court disapproved the goal of reunification, directed petitioner to commence a permanent neglect proceeding to terminate his parental rights and suspended his supervised visitation.  *  *  *

Family Court erred by imposing separate and contradictory permanency goals on the mother and father.  Upon concluding at the end of a permanency hearing that a child is not to be returned immediately to a parent, the court must determine whether the permanency goal should be approved or modified and may select among five statutory permanency goals (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i]; …).  These “goal[s] are listed as alternatives, with the court to choose only one.  Nothing in the statute indicates that the court may select and impose on the parties two or more goals simultaneously” … .  The statute contemplates the commencement of termination proceedings against a parent only when the permanency goal is “placement for adoption” (Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i] [B]). To require such proceedings as to one parent where, as here, the permanency goal is reunification with the other parent is not only inconsistent with the statutory goals but also with the overall goal of permanent neglect proceedings, to further the children’s best interests by freeing them for adoption when positive parental relationships no longer exist … .  In the Matter of Julian P, 512450, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

 

,

Negligence and Fraudulent Misrepresentation Causes of Action Can Not Be Based on Allegations of Breach of Contract 

In determining Supreme Court should have dismissed the negligence and fraudulent misrepresentations cause of action in a complaint based upon breach of contract, the Third Department wrote:

“[A] simple breach of contract claim is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated . . .[, which] legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract” ….  Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any special relationship or legal duty aside from the contractual relationship….   The  negligence and  fraudulent misrepresentation claims are based upon  the same  alleged wrongful conduct as the breach of contract claim, rendering them duplicative … . Rorok v Moore’s Flatwork…, 515459, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

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