You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Question of Fact About Whether Solar Panels Violate a Restrictive Covenant Precluded Dismissal of Complaint 

In a decision by Justice Spain, the Third Department reversed the dismissal of a complaint alleging that solar panels installed on defendants’ residential property violated a restrictive covenant.  The Third Department wrote:

We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to plaintiff’s assertion that the panels  violate the  second restrictive covenant in the deeds, which states: “Said premises shall not be used for the storage of building materials, automobiles  or automobiles  parts, nor  shall any  nuisances  be maintained on said premises, which may be in any manner dangerous or noxious or offensive to the neighborhood inhabitants”   (emphasis added).   We find that plaintiffs have alleged facts that could support a cause of action based on violation of this covenant. Specifically, we  hold that it was sufficient for plaintiffs to allege that the installation of six, 14-foot tall, 8-foot wide solar panels within a neighborhood that carries many aesthetic restrictions is, within the meaning of the restrictive covenant, a nuisance “which may be in any manner dangerous or noxious or offensive to the neighborhood inhabitants.”  Faler v Haines, 515349, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

No Need for Consent of Biological Father in Adoption Proceeding

In a decision by Justice Rick, the Third Department affirmed the adoption of a child without the consent of the biological father:

A  biological father’s consent to adopt a child over six months old  who was  born out of wedlock is required only if the father “maintained substantial and  continuous contact with the child as manifested by”  payment  of reasonable  child support and either monthly visitation or regular communication with the child or custodian (Domestic Relations Law  § 111 [1] [d]).”Only after the [biological] father establishes his right of consent to the adoption, by satisfying both the support and  communication provisions of the statute, does the court proceed to determine whether he has forfeited that right by evincing ‘an intent to forego his . . . parental . . . rights and  obligations'” as outlined in Domestic Relations Law  § 111 (2) (a)… . Matter of John Q v Erica R, 514216, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Court Improperly Amended Allegations in Neglect Petition

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice McCarthy, determined Family Court improperly amended the allegations in a neglect petition:

On this record, summary judgment was improperly granted. Significantly, the  petition as  filed only  alleges that respondent neglected the children as a result of the events surrounding respondent’s March  2011 arrest. Nevertheless, Family Court granted the petition based on  “amplified” allegations of neglect that it found related to the father’s alleged untreated mental illness. No amended petition was filed nor was respondent given an opportunity to amend his answer. While a court may amend the allegations in a neglect proceeding  “to conform  to the proof[,]. . . in such case the respondent shall be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations” (Family Ct Act § 1051 [b] …). Matter of Aiden XX, 514147, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

Criteria for Grant of Visitation to Grandparent When Both Parents Alive

In affirming the grant of visitation to a grandparent (where both parents are living), the Third Department, in a decision by Justice Egan, wrote:

Where a grandparent seeks visitation and, as is the case here, both of the child’s parents are living, Family Court first must ascertain whether “conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene” (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]) in order to confer standing … . “An essential part of the standing inquiry is the nature and extent of the existing grandparent-grandchild relationship . . . [as well as] the basis for the parents’ objection to visitation” ….  Should Family Court determine that the grandparent has standing to seek visitation, the question then becomes whether such visitation is in the child’s best interests …. Inasmuch as Family Court had the advantage of assessing the witnesses’ testimony and demeanor firsthand, its credibility determination “should not be set aside if it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” …. Matter of Laudadio, 514069, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Okay for Expert to Rely On Information from Social Workers Who Are Not Subjected to Cross-Examination

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice Peters, determined that an expert in a custody matter could rely on information provided by caseworkers who where not subject to cross-examination:

Initially, both the mother and the attorney for the children contend that the opinion testimony of Elizabeth Schockmel, the court-appointed forensic psychologist, should have been stricken because her opinion was based in part upon information she obtained from Department of Social Services caseworkers who were not subject to cross-examination.  We disagree. “[T]he professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule . . . enables an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay, provided it is demonstrated to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession” … . Here,   Schockmel testified – without contradiction – that information obtained from  collateral sources is commonly  relied upon  within her profession when  conducting a forensic psychological evaluation in the context of a custody proceeding …. Moreover, her opinion was  principally based upon  information she obtained from  her extensive interviews with the mother, father and  children, with the collateral source information serving as but “a link in the chain of data” that assisted her in forming her opinion … . Accordingly,  Schockmel’s expert opinion testimony was  properly admitted.  Matter of Greene v Robarge, 512987, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Five-Day Time-Limit On Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Erroneous Information Provided by Prosecutor to Defendant Which Caused Defendant to Refrain from Testifying Before the Grand Jury

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice Peters, reversed County Court’s dismissal of an indictment based on the prosecutor’s (erroneously) telling the defendant he would be subject to cross-examination about a pending charge if he chose to testify before the grand jury.  There is a five-day time limitation for a motion to dismiss on that ground.  Defendant’s motion was deemed untimely:

We agree with the People that County Court erred in dismissing the indictment on the ground that defendant was deprived of his statutory right to testify before the grand jury. County  Court ruled that the prosecutor’s misstatement of law with respect to the questioning of defendant about  the unrelated pending  charge  for purposes  of  impeaching  his credibility caused defendant to withdraw  his request to testify before the grand jury, thereby  effectively depriving him  of  his right to testify under CPL 190.50 (5). Any alleged violation of that right, however, must be raised by  a motion to dismiss the indictment, pursuant to either CPL 170.50 or 210.20, no later than five days after arraignment on the indictment or such challenge will be deemed waived … .  People v Sutherland, 105155, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

, ,

Failure to Verify Weight of Cocaine May Constitute Ineffective Assistance

In a decision by Justice Lahtinen, the Third Department determined the defendant had raised a question whether he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not independently verify the weight of the cocaine he was charged with possessing.  The matter was sent back to the motion court for a hearing on defendant’s CPL 440 motion to vacate his conviction.  The Third Department wrote:

While failing to independently verify the weight of drugs does not necessarily  constitute  ineffective assistance …, this record contains sufficient factual issues as to whether  defendant  was  affirmatively given incorrect information by his counsel on an issue assertedly important in his decision to accept the plea and, as such, a hearing is required on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel … People v Johnson, 103457, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

, , ,

1983 Action Against Department of Corrections Is Not Brought in the Court of Claims

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice Garry, reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a 1983 action against employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision challenging a urinalysis report:

Supreme Court found that it lacked jurisdiction based upon Correction Law § 24, which requires that actions alleging negligence by state correction officers be commenced in the Court of Claims; however, it has been established that this provision may not be applied to bar actions brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … . Carrington v Moore, 513818, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Representation of Co-defendants by Attorneys In Same Firm Constituted Ineffective Assistance

Defendant brought a motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 440 to vacate his conviction on the ground that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.  Defendant’s attorney was “of counsel” to the law firm of the attorney who represented a co-defendant.  The co-defendant agreed to testify against the defendant in return for a lesser sentence.  Ultimately the defendant pled guilty.  In reversing the judgment of conviction, the Third Department, in a decision by Justice Stein, wrote:

When a single attorney or multiple attorneys associated with the same firm simultaneously represent clients in a criminal matter, “if the clients’ interests actually conflict, and if the defendant has not waived the conflict, the defendant is deprived of the effective assistance of counsel”… People v Lynch, 104852, 104945, 3rd Dept 3-26-13

 

Injury to Officer from Collapsing Stretcher Deemed Accidental

The Third Department annulled a determination denying a police officer’s claim for accident disability benefits.  The officer was injured when a wheeled stretcher collapsed.  The Third Department determined the collapse of the stretcher was not a foreseeable consequence of the officer’s ordinary duties and, therefore, constituted an accident.  In the Matter of Scharp v DiNapoli, 515287, 3rd Dept. 3-21-13

 

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