You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine 

The Third Department, in reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of privity precluded the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Northrop owned a gas station which was a designated spill site (gasoline). The Department of Environmental Conservation spent about $125,000 cleaning it up. Northrop sought payment for the clean-up from its insurance carrier (the defendant here). In a prior declaratory judgment proceeding Supreme Court determined the policy did not cover petroleum contamination. Then the state, the plaintiff here, started an action against the defendant insurance company under Navigation Law 190 seeking reimbursement of the clean-up expenses.  Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the prior declaratory judgment finding the insurance policy did not cover the clean-up expense).  In reversing, finding collateral estoppel should not have been invoked because Northrop and the state were not in privity, the Third Department wrote:

Plaintiff is the entity that has undertaken the cleanup and now seeks reimbursement for monies expended. Thus, plaintiff has a right of indemnification against Northport to recoup these costs …, establishing an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship. Plaintiff’s right of indemnification,  however, is independent of Northport’s contractual right to have its insurance carrier, defendant, cover these costs under the terms of the liability insurance  policy. Moreover, Navigation Law § 190 authorizes plaintiff to commence a direct action against defendant, and this right is independent of plaintiff’s right of indemnification against Northport. Given that plaintiff’s rights are not conditioned upon and do not derive from Northport’s, the existence of an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship between Northport and plaintiff does not establish privity between these parties.  State of New York v Zurich American Insurance Company, 514916, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

Plaintiff was severely injured when a backhoe bucket that had been suspended over him came down and crushed him.  With respect to the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the issue was whether the backhoe bucket was a “falling object” within the meaning of the statute. In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that the backhoe bucket was not a falling object, the Third Department wrote:

 …[L]iability does not extend to “harm . . . caused by an inadequate, malfunctioning or defectively designed  scaffold, stay or hoist” unless the injury itself was  caused by  “the application of the force of gravity to an  object or person” … .  Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the accident occurred as a result of … jostling the controls, causing the backhoe’s properly functioning hydraulic system to lower the bucket. Thus, the evidence  submitted  by  plaintiffs, if accepted  as true, would establish that “the backhoe  bucket  crushed  plaintiff[] . . . not because  of gravity, but  because  of its mechanical  operation by  an allegedly negligent co-worker” ….   Under these circumstances, Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ section 240 (1) claim because there was no falling object – “the harm [did not] flow[] directly from the application of the force of gravity to [an] object” …, but from the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site … .  Mohamed v City of Watervliet, 515473, 3rd Dept 5-9-13

 

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Injury Incurred by State Trooper; Paramedic when Removing Injured Person from Crashed Car Was Covered “Occurrence” Under Trooper; Paramedic’s Supplementary Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Policy

Plaintiff, a state trooper, licensed registered nurse and paramedic, was injured helping to remove an injured person (Williams) from a car struck by Prindle’s car. Plaintiff sued Prindle and the action was settled for the policy limit. Then plaintiff sought to recover under his own supplementary uninsured-underinsured motorist policy (hereinafter SUM) (the defendant in this case).  The defendant insurance company denied coverage, claiming plaintiff was not injured in an automobile accident.  In affirming Supreme Court’s finding that the insurance company was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action because the policy language allowed the interpretation plaintiff’s injury was related to the “use” of Pringle’s vehicle, the Third Department wrote:

“[SUM] coverage policies, such as the one at issue herein, apply only when an insured’s injuries are [proximately] ’caused by an accident arising out of [the underinsured] motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use'”….  Under the circumstances here, Supreme Court properly concluded that defendant failed to meet  its threshold burden of demonstrating  that plaintiff’s injury was not caused by the use of Prindle’s underinsured vehicle. We reject defendant’s narrow interpretation of the SUM policy’s provision requiring  that  the  insured’s  injuries be directly caused by an accident that arose out of the use of a vehicle and defendant’s related assertion that the accident complained of here occurred only at the time of plaintiff’s injury. Construing the language of the policy liberally and resolving any ambiguity in favor of the insured …, defendant’s interpretation is contrary to the plain meaning thereof.  Kesnick v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 514901, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Notice Element of Lead-Paint Injury Cause of Action Explained

In affirming the denial of summary judgment in a lead-paint injury case, the Third Department explained the “notice” elements as follows:

With respect to notice, “[i]t is well settled that in order for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time  that, in the exercise of reasonable  care, it should  have been corrected” …. In this context, constructive notice may  be demonstrated by a showing “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and  assumed  a duty to make  repairs, (2) knew  that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … . Derr v Fleming, 515399, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

,

Post-Arrest Exception to Warrant Requirement for Automobile Search Explained

In upholding a search of a purse inside a vehicle after a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, the Third Department explained the post-arrest exception to the warrant requirement for an automobile search:

Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the police may search an automobile – including containers found inside – when they have arrested one of its occupants and there is “‘probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of the crime, a weapon or some means of escape’ “The search, however, need not be limited to items related to the crime for which the occupant is being arrested; it may be instituted when the circumstances provide probable cause to believe that any crime has been or is being committed … .  * * *

The Trooper testified that his search was prompted by his observation of the marihuana stem, the suspicious behavior of the front passenger with respect to the brown purse, the fact that none of the vehicle’s occupants  acknowledged  ownership of such purse and the inconsistent statements made by them regarding their destination. Viewing these circumstances as an integrated whole, we conclude that the Trooper had probable cause to believe that a crime had  been or was  being  committed,  which  justified a search of the vehicle, including the brown purse found therein ….. Since we find no error in the search of the vehicle, we also reject defendant’s claim that the statements he made thereafter should have been suppressed as “fruit of the  poisonous  tree.”  People v Thompson, 104836, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

SEARCH, SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

,

Kicking In Window Satisfies Entry Element of Burglary

In this case, the Third Department determined kicking in a window satisfies the “entry” element of burglary and the recording by the police of a phone conversation between the defendant and his sister, although it may have violated the eavesdropping statute, was not an error preserved for appeal:

“[T]he entry element of burglary is satisfied ‘when a person intrudes within a building, no matter how slightly, with any part of his or her body'” …, and kicking in a window constitutes an entry even when the perpetrator then flees without further intruding into the building ….  *  *  *

Defendant contended  that he  had  a reasonable expectation of privacy during this conversation,  and  now  further asserts that  police committed the crime of eavesdropping by recording this conversation (see Penal Law § 250.05).  We agree with Supreme Court’s rejection of the privacy claim, and the unpreserved eavesdropping claim does not warrant modification in the interest of justice ….  People v McFarland, 104491, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Not Followed

County Court failed to comply with the statutory procedure for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (Criminal Procedure Law 440.46).  County Court did not issue a written order re: the new sentence, did not issue written findings of fact and reasons for the sentence, and did not inform the defendant of his right to appeal the resentence or his right to withdraw his motion for resentencing.  The Third Department wrote:

Resentencing under CPL 440.46 incorporates the detailed procedures of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23…). Those procedures require, as relevant here, that an order issued by  the court informing a defendant of the sentence it will impose in the event of resentencing “must include written findings of fact and reasons for such order” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23 …). Defendant must also be notified that he  or she has a right to appeal that written order of proposed resentencing as well as a right – which can be exercised after the appeal and upon remand – to be  given an  opportunity to withdraw  the application for resentencing before any resentence is imposed…. People v Delayo, 104402, 3rd Dept, 3-2-13

 

,

Post-Arrest Search of Purse Not in Grabbable Area and Not in Vehicle Invalid

The Third Department made a careful analysis of the police actions after receiving an anonymous tip that two women in car were taking drugs.  The court determined the police acted properly in escalating the police intrusion from questioning to arrest, including the search of the car without a warrant.  However, the Third Department held that the post-arrest search of a purse that was not inside the car, and was not in the defendant’s “grabbable area,” was not valid.  In addition the Third Department held the defendant’s answer to a police officer’s question about who owned the purses should have been suppressed, because, at the time of the question, the defendant would not have reasonably believed she was free to go and she had not waived her right to remain silent.  But because her statement was not “involuntary” it would be available for impeachment at trial should she testify.  People v Boler, 104092, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

Failure to Allow Inmate to Observe Search of Cell Required Annulment​

In annulling a disciplinary determination because petitioner was not allowed to observe the search of his cell, the Third Department wrote:

Department of Corrections and  Community Supervision Directive No. 4910 [V] [C] [1] provides, as relevant here, that “[i]f the inmate is removed  from quarters prior to [a] search, he or she shall be  placed outside the immediate area to be  searched, but allowed to observe the search. However, if, in the opinion of a supervisory security staff member, the inmate presents a danger to the safety and security of the facility, the inmate shall be  removed  from the area and  not allowed to observe the search.” At the disciplinary hearing, petitioner raised his objection that he  was  improperly removed  from the area of his cell despite his request to observe the search. Absent  any  indication that a  supervisory staff member determined  that petitioner posed  a  danger  to the security of the facility, we  cannot  conclude  that the Department  of Corrections and Community Supervision complied with Directive No. 4910.  Matter of Mingo v Chappius, 514655, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

, ,

Town Zoning Ordinances Prohibiting Exploration For and Production of Natural Gas (In Response to Concerns Over Hydrofracking) Upheld​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department held that a town zoning ordinance which banned “all activities which related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum,” passed in response to concern over “hydrofracking,”  was not preempted by New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) (ECL 23-0301, et seq).  The opinion includes an extensive discussion of the legislative history of the preemption language in the OGMSL, as well as the concepts of express, implied and conflict preemption. Norse Energy Corp, USA v Town of Dryden, et al, 515227, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

For identical reasons, a similar ordinance enacted by the Town of Middlefield was held valid by the Third Department.  Cooperstown Holstein Corp v Town of Middlefield, 515498, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

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