You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ CLAIMS THAT DEFENDANTS PROVIDED PROPER CARE AND ADVICE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE BELIED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS AS EXPLAINED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s experts in this medical malpractice action raised questions of fact about the negligence of each defendant. The decision is fact-specific and far too detailed to fairly summarize, but it provides insight into when expert affidavits are deemed sufficiently substantive to raise questions of fact:

… [W]hen viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that the record raises several questions of fact as to whether each defendant satisfied the standard of care applicable to him or it … . Despite that each defendant and their respective experts opined that decedent was not presenting with the signs or symptoms of a stroke, this is belied by the medical record, which establishes that decedent was experiencing a stroke and/or vertebral artery dissection during the relevant time period that they treated decedent and presented with the “classic” symptoms associated with a stroke. At a minimum, these differing opinions create a question of fact, which plaintiff’s experts highlighted in so far that each defendant deviated from the standard of care by failing to refer decedent to a specialist or neurologist … . McCarthy v Town of Massena, N.Y. (Massena Mem. Hosp.)2023 NY Slip Op 03959, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Here the medical records as explained by plaintiff’s experts raised questions of fact about whether plaintiff’s decedent was exhibiting symptoms of a stroke at the time defendants treated him, a diagnosis defendants allegedly failed to make.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER’S USING HIS CELL PHONE WHILE ON DUTY TO SEND EXPLICIT MESSAGES VIOLATED THE EMPLOYEE’S MANUAL AND WARRANTED PUNISHMENT, TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that petitioner, a civil service employee, was properly found to have violated the Employee’s Manual by using his cell phone while on duty to send explicit messages. However, termination was deemed too severe a penalty and the matter was remitted. The dissent argued termination was proper:

“Judicial review of an administrative penalty is limited to whether, in light of all the relevant circumstances, the penalty is so disproportionate to the charged offenses as to shock one’s sense of fairness” … . Petitioner was employed by respondent for 21 years at the time of the hearing and had a generally unremarkable disciplinary history….  Further, there is no indication that the messages were disseminated to any of his colleagues or subordinates or that there was a significant impact on the performance of his duties. To the contrary, the record establishes that petitioner consistently received strong evaluations for his work performance. Further, the record establishes that petitioner expressed remorse to respondent’s investigators, noting that he was not proud of his conduct, which he characterized as “unprofessional and even inappropriate.” Under these circumstances, we find that the penalty of termination “is so disproportionate to the offense and shockingly unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” and, accordingly, we remit the matter for consideration of a less severe penalty … . Matter of Brooks v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2023 NY Slip Op 03962, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: A civil service employee’s violation of general provisions of the Employee’s Manual, here the employee’s use of his cell phone to send explicit messages while on duty, warranted punishment . But termination was deemed too severe.

 

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER’S ABSCONDING FROM SUPERVISION IS A NON-TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF PAROLE AUTHORIZING REINCARCERATION FOR 30 MONTHS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner committed a non-technical violation of his parole (absconding from supervision) for which he could be incarcerated for 30 months. Supreme Court had determined petitioner had committed a technical violation for which he could be incarcerated for only 15 days:

… [P]etitioner was released to postrelease supervision on August 4, 2020. On August 11, 2020, petitioner was charged with violating various conditions of release, including that he not abscond from supervision, and a parole warrant was issued. In March 2021, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) was advised that petitioner had been arrested and charged with assault. DOCCS then issued a supplemental parole violation notice that included various new violation charges, including that petitioner had committed an assault while on release. In April 2021, a final parole revocation hearing was held during which petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of absconding from supervision in satisfaction of all the violations with which he was charged. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ordered that petitioner be held for 30 months. * * *

… [P]etitioner’s condition of parole prohibiting him from absconding — that he admitted to violating, prescribing petitioner from “intentionally avoiding supervision by failing to maintain contact with my [p]arole [o]fficer and failing to reside at my approved residence” — is in line with the Legislature’s concerns regarding sex offenders released on parole and is also reasonably related to petitioner’s sex offense and efforts to protect the public from the commission of a repeat of that offense so as to warrant classifying him as a non-technical offender under Executive Law § 259 (7) (b). People ex rel. Marrero v Stanford, 2023 NY Slip Op 03964, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Under the Less is More Act DOCCS must determine whether a parole violation is technical, allowing only minimal reincarceration, or non-technical, allowing reincarceration up to the balance of the period of post-release supervision. Here the sex offender’s absconding from supervision was deemed a non-technical violation allowing reincarceration for 30 months.

 

, , , , ,

THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND HIRING CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE WARREN COUNTY DEFENDANTS IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING ABUSE IN FOSTER CARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ADEQUATELY ALLEGE THE WARREN COUNTY DEFENDANTS WERE AWARE OF THE DANGER POSED BY PLAINTIFF’S FOSTER FATHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence and negligent supervision causes of action against the Warren County defendants in this Child Victims Act case should have been dismissed. The complaint did not adequately allege the Warren County defendants were aware of the danger posed by plaintiff’s foster father:

… [W]e agree with the Warren County defendants that Supreme Court should have dismissed the negligence and negligent hiring, retention, supervision and/or direction causes of action as they relate to the conduct in Warren County. The complaint alleged that, in approximately 1979, plaintiff was placed in a foster home in Warren County, where he was sexually abused by his foster father on numerous occasions. Although we are cognizant that pleadings alleging negligent hiring, retention and supervision need not be pleaded with specificity … , the complaint merely asserts that the Warren County defendants “knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known” that the foster father “had the propensity to engage in sexual abuse of children.” Unlike in the counties of Albany and Cayuga — where plaintiff alleges that he reported the sexual abuse, thereby providing the municipal defendants with notice of the dangerous condition — the complaint fails to assert any allegations of fact that would have provided the Warren County defendants with notice that the foster father presented a foreseeable harm. Because plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that the Warren County defendants were provided notice of a dangerous condition present in the Warren County foster home, that claim could not survive a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … , and Supreme Court should have dismissed those claims against the Warren County defendants. Easterbrooks v Schenectady County, 2023 NY Slip Op 03889, Third Dept 7-20-23

Practice Point: In order to adequately plead a county was negligent in placing plaintiff in a foster-care situation where plaintiff was abused, the complaint must allege facts demonstrating the county was aware of the danger posed by the foster parent.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER PLAINTIFF’S LAND; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE DAMAGES ELEMENT OF TRESPASS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the requirements for a prescriptive easement over plaintiff’s property were not met and plaintiff did not prove the damages element of the trespass action. Plaintiff, however, was entitled to nominal damages for trespass:

… [O]ur independent review of the trial evidence reflects that defendant did not establish that the adverse use of the road continued for the requisite 10-year period. It follows that defendant’s counterclaim for a prescriptive easement must be dismissed and that, in the absence of that easement, [defendant] committed a trespass when he entered upon plaintiff’s property in 2004 … . * * *

… [P]laintiff failed to meet her burden of proving “[t]he lesser of the diminution in value of the property or the cost to repair” that would be the ordinary measure of damages for a trespass … or, for that matter, the loss of a specific number of trees for purposes of RPAPL 861 … . She was accordingly not entitled to an award of actual damages. Nevertheless, because “nominal damages can be presumed in an action for trespass to real property,” dismissal of her trespass claim was not warranted upon that basis … . Mastbeth v Shiel, 2023 NY Slip Op 03895, Third Dept 7-20-23

Practice Point: Here defendant did not prove 10 years of hostile use of plaintiff’s property and therefore did not demonstrate a prescriptive easement. Plaintiff did not prove the damages element of trespass and therefore was entitled only to nominal damages.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS, PRECLUSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION; PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY FINED $5000 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined preclusion of evidence in this medical malpractice case as a sanction for failure to provide discovery was too severe a sanction. The appellate court imposed a monetary sanction on plaintiff’s attorney:

Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s trial counsel engaged in willful and contumacious conduct which delayed resolution of this case, and the record supports such a finding. Defense counsel requested an amended bill of particulars in May 2019 and an amended expert disclosure in October 2019. Despite a plethora of emails and letters from defense counsel, various conferences, scheduling orders and an order compelling compliance with discovery, plaintiff’s trial counsel failed to correct the deficiencies in the discovery disclosure prior to defendant filing a motion for sanctions. Under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that the conduct exhibited by plaintiff’s trial counsel was willful and contumacious and that, upon such finding, the drastic sanction of preclusion was available … . * * *

Having considered the record as a whole, including the supplemental discovery disclosures, the affidavit of merit, the lack of prejudice to defendant and the nature and root of the misconduct, we vacate the August 2022 order that precluded plaintiff from proffering certain evidence and expert witnesses. Exercising our discretion, and given the strong public policy favoring resolution of actions on the merits, we accept the late amended bill of particulars as responsive to the outstanding demand … .. However, the willful and contumacious misconduct by plaintiff’s trial counsel cannot be condoned, as disregard of court orders hinders the efficient resolution of cases … . To dissuade this conduct from repeating, we impose a monetary sanction on plaintiff’s trial counsel in the amount of $5,000 … . M.F. v Albany Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 03896, Third Dept 7-20-23

Practice Point: Here the appellate court determined the preclusion of evidence, including expert evidence, in this medical malpractice action was too severe a sanction for disobeying discovery orders. The attorney was fined $5000 for willful and contumacious conduct.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that items observed by the police during a “protective sweep” of his residence should have been suppressed. At the time of defendant’s arrest and the protective sweep defendant was outside of his residence. The police had no reason to believe others were inside the residence:

Upon a lawful arrest, the police may conduct a limited protective sweep of the premises, but this ‘is justified only when the police have articulable facts upon which to believe that there is a person present who may pose a danger to those on the scene’ … . The purported protective sweep conducted here was improper, as there were no articulable facts supporting a belief that any other person was present inside the trailer, let alone a person who could pose a threat to those on the scene … . Neither the search warrant nor the suppression hearing testimony reflected that anyone other than defendant was ever observed or believed to be inside the trailer, and there was nothing referenced that would serve to indicate that there was any lingering threat. People v Hadlock, 2023 NY Slip Op 03819, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: The defendant was arrested outside his residence and the police conducted a protective sweep of the residence which led to the seizure of contraband observed during the sweep. Because the police had no reason to believe anyone else was present, the sweep of the residence was not justified and the observed items should have been suppressed.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s expert evidence in this medical malpractice case was not conclusory or speculative and was sufficient to raise a question of fact. The decision is fact-specific and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he internist [plaintiff’s expert] specifically opined that earlier intubation …  would have produced a “70% chance of survival” by preventing the anoxic brain injury and allowing the sepsis, respiratory distress and ARDS symptoms to be treated. The internist also stated that earlier intubation would have made it “more likely than not” that decedent’s “clinical condition would have improved.” When giving plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences as the nonmoving parties, a rational juror could infer that decedent would have had a better chance at recovering from the necrotizing pancreatitis and related sepsis and ARDS if she had been intubated … prior to the second rapid response event … . Thus, we conclude that the internist’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation, warranting denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion … . Sovocool v Cortland Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 03826, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: Although this med mal decision is fact-specific, it provides some insight into when an expert’s affidavit can be rejected as conclusory or speculative. The affidavit here was deemed sufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

, ,

THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION SUBMIT A SECOND VOTING-DISTRICT REDISTRICTING PLAN AFTER THE REJECTION OF THE FIRST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) was required by statute to submit a second voting-district redistricting plan after the rejection of the first. The opinion provides a detailed analysis of the constitutional, legislative and administrative measures taken to reform the manner in which voting-district maps are drawn:

The IRC had an indisputable duty under the NY Constitution to submit a second set of maps upon the rejection of its first set (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). The language of NY Constitution, article III, § 4 makes clear that this duty is mandatory, not discretionary. It is undisputed that the IRC failed to perform this duty. Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commission, 2023 NY Slip Op 03828, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: The constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements for the approval of a voting-district redistricting plan are explained in depth.

 

, ,

AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one of three counts, determined the superseding indictment which came down after a mistrial on the original indictment was a nullity because the trial judge did not dismiss the original indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment. The issue was not preserved and the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice. Because defendant had been convicted of two counts which were in the original indictment, those convictions were allowed to stand because the original indictment was never dismissed. The Third Department noted that double jeopardy principles do not attach to a mistrial. The conviction on the third count, which was not in the original indictment, was reversed:

… [B]ecause the court did not, upon declaring the mistrial on the original indictment, “dismiss the indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment to the [g]rand [j]ury[,] . . . the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the same accusatory instrument” … ; thus, the superseding indictment is a nullity … . However, reversal of the judgment of conviction is not required given that both indictments contained two identical counts … . * * * This conclusion, however, does not extend to count 1 of the superseding indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree … , which was not charged in the original indictment; therefore, we reverse that conviction. To the extent that defendant raises double jeopardy concerns, as the first trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy principles do not attach … . People v Gentry, 2023 NY Slip Op 03818, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, the judge does not dismiss the indictment or authorize a new indictment, the original indictment remains. Double jeopardy does not attach.

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, a superseding indictment is brought without the trial court’s authorization, the superseding indictment is a nullity and the original indictment remains in effect.

 

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