You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FLOOR TO CEILING WOODEN BRACE IN A HOME WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS NATURE OF THE BRACE DID NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the open and obvious nature of condition (a wooden brace over which plaintiff tripped) did not warrant summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the Labor Law 200 cause of action. The home was under construction and the brace ran at a 45 degree angle from the floor to the ceiling in the middle of the kitchen:

… [D]efendants failed to meet their prima facie burden as questions of fact remain as to whether defendants maintained the worksite in a reasonably safe condition, precluding summary judgment. … [D]efendants presented an affidavit of David Rubin, a former CEO of a general contracting firm with 45 years of experience in the field of general construction. Rubin reviewed, among other things, photographs of the worksite and observed there were two-by-four wooden braces set up throughout the home that were “necessary and fundamental to the construction process.” He explained that the brace plaintiff tripped over was “conspicuous and not hidden from sight, and indeed, plaintiff had already seen that particular brace prior to his incident.” Ultimately, he opined that neither the use nor the placement of the brace was negligent as it was necessary to support the structure at that stage of construction.

Although Rubin placed great emphasis on the fact that the brace was open and obvious and that plaintiff saw it prior to his fall, this Court has repeatedly held that “the open and obvious nature of an allegedly dangerous condition does not, standing alone, necessarily obviate a [general contractor’s] duty to maintain [the worksite] in a reasonably safe condition” … . Rather, the readily observable nature of the wooden brace “merely negated any duty that defendant[s] owed plaintiff to warn of [the] potentially dangerous condition[ ]” … . Nor does plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition that he saw the wooden brace prior to his fall defeat his claim as his “previous knowledge of a defective condition, if any, may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence” … . Accordingly, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ [worksite was] maintained in a reasonably safe condition. That question is for the trier of fact to resolve” … . Sullivan v Flynn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06773, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department noted that a condition which is open and obvious and of which the plaintiff was aware before he was injured is not a sufficient ground for the award of summary judgment on a Labor Law 200 cause of action. Here a wooden floor to ceiling brace in the middle of the kitchen in a house under construction, over which plaintiff tripped, was deemed to raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

A CONFERENCE IN CHAMBERS ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF THE SEX ABUSE ALLEGATIONS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TRIAL WAS DEEMED TO BE A MATERIAL STAGE OF THE TRIAL AT WHICH DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THE COURT RULED EVIDENCE OF THE FIRING COULD BE PRESENTED; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s sex-offense convictions and ordering a new trial, determined it was error to fail to include the defendant in sidebar and chambers conferences and defense counsel’s waiver of defendant’s presence was insufficient:

… County Court did not at any point advise defendant of his right to be present during sidebar conferences. * * * … [A]fter jury selection concluded but before the trial began, a conference was held with the attorneys in chambers wherein defendant plainly was not present. During this conference, County Court heard arguments from both defense counsel and the prosecutor regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, including testimony that defendant was fired from his job at the YMCA following the [sexual abuse] incident in question. There was discussion by the attorneys and the court as to the reason for defendant’s termination and whether it was based upon the charged conduct in this case. The court ruled that evidence of defendant’s firing would be allowed. It was only after it had issued its ruling that the court acknowledged that defendant was not present, whereupon defense counsel stated, “I can waive his appearance.”

Noting that the conference was conducted for the purpose of determining the admissibility of proposed testimony, and further recognizing that defendant presumably had personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding his firing such that he would have been able to meaningfully participate in the discussion … , we find that this conference constituted a material stage of the trial at which defendant had the right to be present. In that regard, the transcript of the conference makes apparent that County Court’s ultimate ruling on this issue turned on the precise reason for defendant’s termination, and defendant was deprived of the opportunity to assist his counsel in advocating against the admission of the subject testimony. Therefore, it cannot be said “that defendant’s presence would have been useless, or the benefit but a shadow” … . People v Benton, 2025 NY Slip Op 06559, Third Dept 11-26-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when the failure to include defendant in a sidebar or chambers conference will be deemed reversible error.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT MOTHER AND FATHER NEGLECTED THE NEWBORN WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR AMPHETAMINES AND DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED SUBUTEX; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD’S LOW BIRTH WEIGHT AND NEED FOR COMFORTING WAS RELATED TO AMPHETAMINES AS OPPOSED TO THE SUBUTEX; FATHER’S “HOSTILE” BEHAVIOR TOWARD PETITIONERS AND HIS REFUSAL TO SIGN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WERE NOT VALID GROUNDS FOR A NEGLECT FINDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support finding mother and father had neglected the newborn child based upon positive toxicology results for amphetamines and Subutex. Subutex had been prescribed by a doctor. Mother admitted using a methamphetamine once during the pregnancy. The evidence did not demonstrate a causal connection between the child’s low birth weight and need for extra comforting and the use of amphetamines as opposed to the doctor-prescribed Subutex:

In finding that the child had been neglected by the mother, Family Court referenced the positive toxicology results and the mother’s admission to having used “ICE.” The court also referenced that the child was born with a “low birth weight consistent with experiencing in utero drug exposure.” While the hospital records confirm the child was “small for gestational age,” there was no testimony linking this to the mother’s use of amphetamines/methamphetamines during pregnancy. The court also cited to the child exhibiting “telltale signs of drug exposure, exhibiting increased tremors when disturbed, high pitch crying and a need for extra comforting.” There was testimony from a registered nurse who cared for the child that the child had withdrawal symptoms, such as a “high-pitched, shrill cry” and “constantly need[ing] to be held and have human touch.” However, there was no testimony as to whether the child’s small birth weight and withdrawal symptoms were related to the mother’s methamphetamine use, rather than her use of Subutex, which her unrefuted testimony demonstrates was prescribed by a doctor.[FN2] In fact, the mother testified that, during her pregnancy, medical professionals informed her that using Subutex would be fine for the child, that there would not be any side effects, but there may be “some withdrawals.” * * *

We reach the same result regarding the father’s neglect finding, which was based upon the father’s behavior toward petitioner’s staff, as well as hospital staff, which was “hostile beyond what would be deemed acceptable by a reasonable and prudent standard.” The finding was also based upon the father’s refusal to sign a birth certificate or acknowledgement of paternity, “effectively abandoning the child when the mother was deemed to be an unsafe caregiver.” There is no support in the law that either of these behaviors constitute neglect, nor did petitioner “demonstrate that [the child’s] physical, mental or emotional condition was in imminent danger of being impaired” based upon these behaviors … . And finally, Family Court imputed the father with knowledge of the mother’s drug use and found that he neglected the child “by failing to exercise a minimum degree of care to prevent the mother from abusing drugs during her pregnancy.” This statement exaggerates what the testimony revealed was the extent of the mother’s drug use during pregnancy, and there simply was no evidence regarding the father’s knowledge of her use … . Matter of Raivyn BB. (Courtney BB.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06564, Third Dept 11-26-25

Practice Point: A newborn’s testing positive for amphetamines is not enough to support a neglect finding without proof the baby’s low birth weight and need for comforting was caused by amphetamines.

Practice Point: Father’s “hostile” attitude and refusal to sign the birth certificate were not valid grounds or a neglect finding.

 

,

THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, DESPITE THIS BEING DEFENDANT’S FIRST CONTACT WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, HIS ACQUITTAL OF THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES, AND AFFIDAVITS FROM SEVERAL JURORS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s attempted assault conviction and the denial of youthful offender status, over a dissent, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a youthful offender adjudication. The victim was slashed with a knife in the abdomen and arm. It was defendant’s first contact with the criminal justice system. Affidavits from some of the jurors were submitted in support of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict:

… Supreme Court noted that it had received multiple letters in support of defendant which indicated that he was of “upstanding character.” The court agreed with defendant’s assertion that this was his first involvement with the criminal justice system and that he had avoided circumstances like this in the past. The court considered these facts in imposing the sentence, but also that there was no evidence that any other individual had been involved in the physical altercation between defendant and the victim. The court expressly disbelieved defendant’s explanation that he carried the knife at all times because he feared for his safety, in view of the fact that defendant’s presence with the knife was explicitly requested. The court noted that if defendant was truly afraid for his safety the appropriate response would be to call campus police, not show up to the fight with knife in tow. The court also paid importance to defendant’s failure to take accountability or acknowledge that his actions caused the victim’s injury, despite having expressed generalized sympathy for the victim. The court found that, although eligible for youthful offender status, the circumstances of the crime did not warrant granting the request and imposed a five-year term of incarceration. * * *

From the dissent:

… “[Y]outhful offender designations are given to those who have a real likelihood of turning their lives around, and the protection gives these individuals the opportunity for a fresh start, without a criminal record” … . That is precisely what the facts of this case present: an individual who made a grave mistake but appears motivated to redeem himself. In my view, although defendant’s crime is significant, justice is better served by imposing a sentence that is commensurate with the severity of his crime while also permitting him to become a productive member of society upon release, which will occur at a critical time in his transition to adult life … . People v Hall, 2025 NY Slip Op 06366, Third Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the broad discretion accorded a judge in determining whether to adjudicate a defendant a youthful offender.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL REPORT DID NOT ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 137 AND COULD BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE FOR THAT REASON, THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO MAKE A TIMELY OBJECTION TO THE REPORT; THE PRECLUSION OF THE REPORT WAS THEREFORE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the medical report (by Dr, Kountis) finding claimant had a 42.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right wrist should not have been precluded because it did not meet the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law 137. Although the Board has the power to preclude the report for that reason, the employer did not make a timely objection to the report:

Although “[a] report of an examination that does not substantially comply with the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law [§] 137 . . . shall not be admissible as evidence,” a party raising an objection to such a report’s admissibility must “raise [that] objection in a timely manner” … . Claimant filed Kountis’ report in March 2023, after which the employer was notified that it had 75 days to respond in any of several enumerated ways, including by filing a memorandum to refute the sufficiency and credibility of the report. At no time during that 75-day period did the employer challenge Kountis’ report for failing to adhere to the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 137. Further, the employer failed to raise the argument during the subsequent hearing held in September 2023. It is clear that the employer had, and failed to avail itself of, ample opportunity to challenge Kountis’ report prior to the WCLJ’s determination. As a result, the employer’s eventual challenge was untimely, and it was error for the Board to preclude Kountis’ report … . Matter of Troiano v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 06377, Third Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If there are grounds for precluding a medical report for failure to meet the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law 137, the employer must make a timely objection to the report. Here the employer failed to object to the report during the 75-day period allowed for objections and failed to object in a hearing held six or seven months after the report was filed. The Third Department determined, under those facts, it was error to preclude the report.

 

,

CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD USED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, AN SLU NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY PRIOR SLU TO THE SAME PART OF THE BODY; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing and remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board applied the wrong standard for compensation for an injury to a member for which an SLU had been made for a prior injury. The Board used the erroneous standard that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member:”

The Court of Appeals has clarified … that successive and “separate SLU awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 15 and, when a claimant proves that the second injury, ‘considered by itself and not in conjunction with the previous disability,’ has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use” … . Thus, a claimant’s entitlement to an additional SLU award for a successive injury to the same statutory member “turns upon the sufficiency of the medical proof adduced” … . “Such demonstration may include medical evidence that a prior injury and the current injury to the same member are ‘separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use of [the subject member]’ and that the current injury resulted in a greater degree of loss of use of the body member in question ‘beyond that . . . [of] the prior injury’ ” … .

… [T]he standard articulated and then applied by the Board, which relied solely upon Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ. (164 AD3d at 1510), was that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member” (emphasis supplied). The Board is not required to reduce or offset the SLU by the prior SLU where a “claimant demonstrates that a subsequent injury increased the loss of use of a body member beyond that resulting from the prior injury” (Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 38 NY3d at 444). Given that the Board’s decision did not consider, or otherwise ascertain the credibility of, the conflicting medical evidence that was before it — which included documentary and testimonial evidence from claimant’s treating physician — regarding the extent to which claimant’s injuries were “separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use” of his right leg … , the Board’s finding of a 12.5% SLU of the right leg must be reversed and the matter remitted for further consideration by the Board in accordance with the holding in Matter of Johnson [supra]. Matter of Krein v Green Haven Corr. Facility, 2025 NY Slip Op 06238, Third Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: When an SLU has been made for a prior injury, a subsequent SLU for the same part of the body need not be reduced by the amount of the prior SLU. The claimant can submit medical evidence that the injuries are separate pathologies which individually caused a specific amount of loss of use.

 

, ,

A NEW APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE FACILITY SUBMITTED WHILE THE CHALLENGE TO A PRIOR APPLICATION WAS PENDING REQUIRED A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW OR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION WAIVING A NEW REVIEW; MATTER REMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Planning Board, when faced with a new application for approval of construction of a storage facility while a challenge to the prior application was still pending, should have conducted a new site plan review or issued a written determination waiving a new site plan review. The matter was remitted to the Planning Board. In the initial application, the proposed building encroached on a residential zoning district. In the new application, the proposed building was entirely within the commercial zoning district:

… [I]t is evident from the application materials and the Planning Board minutes that the second application was meant to serve as a separate application for the purpose of bypassing the challenge still pending [*4]in Supreme Court on the first application.

The new application required the Planning Board to either conduct the site plan review process anew or issue a written determination waiving same, neither of which it did … . Instead, the Planning Board issued site plan approval with little discussion save for a brief question on the topic of parking and ascertaining the status of the proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the initial plan. Based upon this exceedingly limited discussion of the new plan and the utter failure to set forth a record-based elaboration for its decision to grant site plan approval, we cannot find that the Planning Board “identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took [the requisite] hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination,” as required by SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] … . Therefore, that part of the court’s judgment dismissing the causes of action asserting SEQRA violations must be reversed, and that aspect of the petition seeking to annul the Planning Board’s grant of site plan approval granted. Matter of Bigelow v Town of Willsboro Planning Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 06105, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: A new application to the the Planning Board for approval of construction which is designed to bypass a prior application for which a challenge is pending must either be reviewed anew by the Planning Board or the Board must issue a written determination waiving a new review. Neither was done here and the matter was remitted to the Planning Board.

 

, , ,

RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge, who had declined to issue a temporary “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) for respondent and had set the matter down for a hearing, did not have the authority to, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and dismiss the petition. After respondent had threatened self harm he was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

… [O]ne day prior to the scheduled hearing, Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a decision canceling the hearing and dismissing the petition. As grounds for the dismissal, the court found that dismissal best served the interest of preserving judicial and law enforcement resources given respondent’s inability to purchase a firearm due to the arrest pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, purported hospital admission pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) and the lack of any indication that respondent owned any firearms in New York at the time of the proceeding. …

To begin, as the order on appeal was issued on a sua sponte basis, no appeal lies as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Nevertheless, “we treat the notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal and grant the request” … .

… Supreme Court’s sua sponte order dismissing the petition must be reversed. “[S]ua sponte dismissals are to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant them” … . Here, there is no indication that such extraordinary circumstances exist. The grounds relied upon by Supreme Court — that the relief that would be provided by an ERPO was “duplicative and an inefficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources” — to the extent that they could constitute meritorious grounds for dismissal, require that petitioner be given the opportunity to respond and object … . Moreover, CPLR 6343 (1) clearly mandates that if a temporary ERPO is denied, such as occurred here, the court hold a hearing, no later than 10 business days after the application for the ERPO is served on the respondent, to determine whether an ERPO should be issued. Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal on grounds that are entirely absent from the statute was improper, and we therefore reverse and remit to conduct a hearing as required. Matter of Hogencamp v Matthew KK., 2025 NY Slip Op 06106, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right. Permission to appeal must be requested.​

Practice Point: Here the respondent threatened self harm and was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. A judge’s authority is constrained by the Mental Hygiene Law. Once an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) is denied by the judge and the matter is set down for a hearing, the judge cannot, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and deny the petition for reasons not prescribed in the Mental Hygiene Law.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined plaintiff’s salary, paid to hm as the sole shareholder in a professional service corporation, was not a corporate expense and therefore could be recoverable as damages for lost profits in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff, a radiation oncologist, successfully sued the hospital for breach of contract after the hospital terminated him. The instant dispute is about the available damages. In addition to ruling plaintiff could recover his lost salary from his professional service corporation as damages, the Third Department held defendant could present proof plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding employment, through another professional service corporation, with another hospital. The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings:

Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting causes of action for, among others, breach of contract, wrongful termination, libel and slander. Following the completion of disclosure and motion practice, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on the four remaining causes of action for breach of contract. A jury trial on damages was scheduled, and the parties filed respective motions in limine disputing the method of calculating damages and whether evidence of ]plaintiffs’] duty to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury. Such dispute essentially distills to whether the salary paid by a professional service corporation to its sole shareholder must be treated as an expense in calculating the lost profits, thus subtracting it from the corporation’s profits and correspondingly reducing its damages. Supreme Court, in a pair of well-reasoned decisions, determined that [plaintiff’s] salary as paid by [plaintiff professional service corporation] under the coverage agreement is not an expense and could be recoverable as damages for lost profits. Supreme Court further found that evidence of [plaintiffs’] efforts to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury, and whether or not [plaintiff’s] postbreach earnings are income derived because of defendant’s breach is a question to be resolved by the jury in determining damages. Radiation Oncology Servs. of Cent. N.Y., P.C. v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06112, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Here, in a matter of first impression, the Third Department ruled that plaintiff oncologist, whose salary was paid by plaintiff professional service corporation in which plaintiff oncologist was the sole shareholder, could, in a breach of contract action, recover his lost salary as lost profits. In other words, in this situation, plaintiff’s salary was not considered to be a corporate expense which must be deducted from lost profits when calculating damages for breach of contract.

 

,

ALTHOUGH CONTRACTING COVID-19 IS COMPENSABLE UNDER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE PROOF THAT CLAIMANT CONTRACTED COVID-19 BECAUSE OF WORKPLACE EXPOSURE WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the record did not support the finding that claimant, a school custodian, contracted COVID-19 from workplace exposure. The decision is fact-specific. Claimant had little contact with students during his work hours and there were other possible sources of infection:

We acknowledge that “the contraction of COVID-19 in the workplace is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law” … , that the issue of whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact for the Board to resolve and that the Board’s findings in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed … . Additionally, our case law makes clear that where, as here, the injured claimant alleges that he or she contracted COVID-19 at work, such claimant “bears the burden of demonstrating either a specific exposure to COVID-19 or that COVID-19 was so prevalent in the work environment as to present an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event” … ; “for example, workers with significant contact with the public in communities with high rates of infection or workers in a workplace experiencing high rates of infection” … .

… Although claimant’s job included cleaning various areas of the school and picking up supplies, he acknowledged that his only contact with students would occur while he was mopping the hallways, at which time approximately 20 students would pass by him on their way to the locker rooms. During the relevant time frame, no other member of claimant’s household tested positive for COVID-19, but claimant’s then-spouse worked in-person and did the grocery shopping, her son attended sporting events three days each week and claimant attended church each week with approximately 40 other people. Claimant, who did not wear a mask during church services, testified that his fellow attendees “wouldn’t have been [sitting] that close” to one another. The record is silent as to the rate of infection in either the school where claimant worked or the surrounding community.

Upon reviewing the record as a whole, we cannot say that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. As a starting point, the record is devoid of proof that there was a high rate of infection present in claimant’s work environment at the relevant point in time … . Further, claimant’s brief encounters with a passing group of students in a corridor falls short of the degree of regular, consistent and close interaction with the public at large necessary to sustain a finding of prevalence … . Finally, the record reflects that either claimant or members of his household engaged in other in-person pursuits during the relevant time period. Under these circumstances, the Board’s finding that claimant’s employment exposed him to an elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19 cannot stand. Matter of Angelo (Southwestern Cent. Sch.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05998, Third Dept 10-30-25

Practice Point: Contracting COVID-19 is compensable under Workers’ Compensation but claimant must present proof exposure at the workplace was the source of the infection, not the case here.​

 

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