You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Injury to Officer Who Was Pursuing a Suspect Not an “Accident”

In finding that injury to a police officer was not the result of an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Third Department wrote:

Here, petitioner was performing his regular police duties chasing a suspect within his authorized patrol area at the time he was injured. As we have recognized, the “pursuit of suspects is an ordinary employment duty of a police officer” … .  Petitioner’s pursuit took him through a wooded area to the edge of a ravine where he stopped because he recognized the danger of falling into it. Nevertheless, he stood too close to the edge, the edge gave way under his weight and he fell into the ravine in a manner that he reasonably could have anticipated… .  Matter Roth v DiNapoli, 515078, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

Contacts Insufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction

The Third Department upheld the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s business-related contacts with out-of-state defendants were insufficient to confer New York jurisdiction over them:

Plaintiff entered into a three-month agreement with defendant Yodle, Inc. to conduct an Internet advertising campaign for his divorce document preparation business. Three weeks after agreeing to the terms of the contract, plaintiff emailed defendant Brad Leitch, a Yodle employee who lives and works in North Carolina, and stated that he could not afford to proceed due to unanticipated personal expenses. Relying on the terms of the contract, Yodle refused to refund plaintiff any money and continued the advertising campaign until – just before the end of the three-month term – plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for, among other things, fraud and breach of contract.

* * *Initially, we cannot agree with plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction over Leitch and Long [another Yodle employee who lives and works in Arizona]. Given the nature of their work on plaintiff’s Internet advertising campaign and his limited contact with them via telephone and email, their conduct “did not amount to a purposeful invocation of the privileges of conducting business in New York” so as to confer personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1) … . Collins … v Yodle, Inc…, 514827, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

Connection of Illness to Work at Trade Center Not Demonstrated

The Third Department upheld the denial of World Trade Center Accidental Disability benefits to a policeman who claimed a 12-hour stint looking for survivors exacerbated his pre-existing condition (ulcerative colitis).  The court determined the statutory presumption had been rebutted by the respondent and the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence linking his condition to his work at the World Trade Center. Matter of Cardino v NY State and Local Retirement System, 514782, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

,

Notice of Tax Foreclosure Proceeding Deemed Sufficient

In finding that the notice requirements in a tax foreclosure proceeding had been met, the Third Department wrote:

Tax foreclosure proceedings enjoy a presumption of regularity, such that “[t]he tax debtor has the burden of affirmatively establishing a jurisdictional defect or invalidity in [such] proceedings” … .  In a tax foreclosure proceeding, each property owner is entitled to personal notice of the proceeding (see RPTL 1125 [1] [a]), which “shall be sent to each . . . party both by certified mail and ordinary first class mail” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i]). Such “notice shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States postal service within forty-five days after being mailed” … .Here, while the notice sent by certified mail to the Bayonne address was returned, there is no question that the notice sent by ordinary first class mail to respondent … at that address was not returned. Therefore, such notice was deemed received by respondent (see RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i]…) . Matter of Foreclosure … 514737, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Assets Allegedly Wrongly Appropriated by Fiduciary Deemed “Asset-Transfers” for Purpose of Qualifying for Medicaid 

Pursuant to a power of attorney granted to Williams, petitioners’ decedent’s assets were transferred to joint accounts with Williams and decedent on the accounts.  Some of the funds were used by Williams for personal purposes.  When decedent applied for Medicaid benefits to pay for nursing home care, the benefits were denied by the Department of Health because it was determined that certain assets had been transferred for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid.  Petitioners brought an Article 78 proceeding arguing that Williams wrongly appropriated the assets and, therefore, the assets were not transferred to qualify for Medicaid.  In upholding the Department of Health’s asset-transfer finding, the Third Department wrote:

In this regard, petitioners contend that Williams breached her fiduciary duty to decedent and engaged in self-dealing, thus establishing that “the assets [in question] were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical assistance” and invoking the exception set forth in Social Services Law § 366 (5) (e) (4) (iii) (B). Although there arguably is evidence in the record that could support such a conclusion, given the existence of the joint checking accounts and the powers conferred upon Williams with respect to financial transactions, substantial evidence supports the Department of Health’s conclusion that petitioners failed to overcome the presumption that the stocks were sold and “the proceeds were transferred – at least in part – in order to qualify for Medicaid” … .Petitioners’ related assertion – that decedent lacked the mental capacity to manage his finances – is equally unavailing, as the record does not establish that decedent was incapacitated at the time the power of attorney was granted or the  joint accounts at issue  were  established. Under such circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Department of Health’s determination that petitioners  did  not  demonstrate  their entitlement to the claimed exception.  Matter of Conners… v Berlin …, 515536, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Criteria for Holding Parent Company Liable for Torts of Subsidiary

In a products liability case, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the parent company could be liable for the torts of a subsidiary.  The relevant legal standard was described as follows:

Liability of a parent company for the torts of a subsidiary does not arise from the mere ownership of a controlling shareholder interest. “Rather ‘there must be direct intervention by the parent in the management of the subsidiary to such an extent that the subsidiary’s paraphernalia of incorporation, directors and officers are completely ignored'” … .   The  parent  company  must  “exercise[] complete  dominion  and  control over the subsidiary” ….  Goodspeed, et al, v Hudson Sharp Machine Company, 515490, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

,

Electricity-Steam Generation Rate Changes Did Not Qualify as a “Rule” Under the State Administrative Procedure Act

In affirming the NYS Public Service Commission’s approval of electricity/steam generation rates, the Third Department determined that the “long-term cost allocation method” did not qualify as a “rule” and therefore did not trigger the notice requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act:

The part of the order determining the long-term cost allocation method does not constitute a rule because it  does not impose “‘a fixed, general principle to be applied by an administrative agency without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme of the statute it administers'” … .   As such, the notice provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act do not apply (see State Administrative Procedures Act §§ 102 [2] [a]; 202 [1] [a]…).   Further, the notices issued by the Commission in connection with the planning proceeding satisfied procedural due process by clearly indicating that the planning case included consideration of the long-term impacts of cost allocation, and petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to be heard on the issue … .  We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be likewise without merit.  Matter of City of New York v NYS Public Service Commission, et al, 515472, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Expert Affidavit in Support of Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment Not Sufficient

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff alleged a delay in performing an emergency cesarean section resulted in oxygen-deprivation-injury to her baby.  In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the hospital, the Third Department noted that the affidavits submitted on behalf of the hospital did not directly address with substantive facts the evidence of a delay in assembling the surgical team:

To establish a party’s entitlement to summary judgment, a physician’s affidavit “must be detailed, specific and factual in nature” and may not simply assert in conclusory fashion that a defendant complied with the standard of care without relating the contention to the particular facts at issue …. In the absence of any factual discussion of the delay, [the] general assertion that NDH “acted at all times in a prompt, timely, and reasonable manner” lacks specificity. Accordingly, NDH failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ opposing papers … . Olinsky-Paul v Jaffe, et al, 514904, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Continuing Course of Treatment Doctrine Not Applicable

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff alleged her pediatrician [Walders] was negligent in failing to properly address the condition of her foot, which turned out to be a symptom of a disorder that went undiagnosed for many years.  In upholding the trial court’s determination that the “continuing course of treatment” doctrine (which would toll the statute of limitations) did not apply, the Third Department explained:

A  “course  of treatment  speaks  to affirmative and ongoing conduct by the physician” which is recognized as such by both the patient and  physician … .Notably, a  “[r]outine examination of a seemingly healthy  patient, or  visits concerning  matters  unrelated  to  the condition  at issue giving rise to  the  claim, are  insufficient to invoke  the  benefit of the  [continuous  treatment]  doctrine” … . Here, the record is devoid of any evidence that would support a finding that Walders provided affirmative treatment to plaintiff for a condition related to her foot and Walders’ failure to diagnose or treat the condition in response to the concerns of plaintiff’s mother does not, by itself, establish an ongoing course of treatment … . Dugan v Troy Pediatrics, LLP, 515407, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review Denial of Request for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline

The Third Department determined it has jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR Art. 78, to review the denial of a request for reconsideration of a disciplinary determination by the Director of the Office of Professional Discipline (Department of Education):

Preliminarily, we reject respondent’s assertion that our Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. Respondent relies on the fact that only review of “decisions of the board of regents” should be brought to the Appellate Division in the first instance (Education Law § 6510 [5]); all other CPLR article 78 proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court (see CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [a], [b]). Here, the Board of Regents never acted upon petitioner’s application because respondent, the Director of OPD, has discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a disciplinary determination is warranted and, only if it is, to then refer the matter to a regents review committee that submits a report to the Board of Regents for a final determination …. We have, however,  previously held that where, as here, respondent  denies an  application for reconsideration, thereby determining  that it does not warrant referral to the Board of Regents, this Court has jurisdiction to review such denial under Education Law § 6510 (5)… .  Matter of Reddy v Catone…, 514467, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

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