You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF HER DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant dog-owner’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should have been granted. Defendant made a prima facie showing she was not aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. Plaintiff did not raise a question of fact on that issue:

Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must, we find that plaintiff failed to raise an issue so as to defeat the motion. As to the statement that the dogs were play fighting, the child admitted that she was unfamiliar with dogs and that she assumed because they were growling that they were fighting or at least unhappy with “what’s [going on] around them.” However, “[n]o court has found that a dog’s growling at one or two other dogs is sufficient to establish vicious propensities” … . Growling and barking during play activities among dogs is consistent with normal canine behavior … . Even if the growling could be considered some indication of vicious propensities, the child never identified the dog that bit her as being the dog that she heard growling. As to the statement that the dog dislikes males, the child testified that defendant’s son told me “something about [the dogs] not liking guys, but as a joke.” This is not proof of an aggressive behavior and, in any event, does not relate to the child because she is a female … . The mere fact that defendant kenneled the dog, and kept the dog in her bedroom when she was absent from her residence, does not support an inference that defendant was aware the dog might pose a danger, since there was no evidence that this was done due to a concern that the dog would harm someone … ; instead defendant’s son stated that the dogs were kenneled because the puppies might escape. Additionally, it is undisputed that the dog was not confined, gated or tethered while the child was at the residence and in fact the child encouraged the dog to jump up on the bed next to her so she could pet it … . J.S. v Mott, 2023 NY Slip Op 03276, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: This is a fact-based dog-bite case. Plaintiff’s allegations in opposition to defendant dog-owner’s summary judgment motion did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant was aware of her dog’s vicious propensities.

 

THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AND THE RELATED SENTENCES VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the inclusory concurrent counts must dismissed and the related sentences vacated:

Modification of the judgment is required due to defendant’s conviction of inclusory concurrent charges. ” ‘With respect to inclusory concurrent counts, a verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted’ ” (… CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). We agree with defendant, and the People correctly concede, that criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts) must be reversed and dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of predatory sexual assault against a child … . Defendant’s contention that incest in the third degree must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of incest in the first degree is moot, as this Court has now dismissed the latter count. People v Sharlow, 2023 NY Slip Op 03260, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: Where a defendant is convicted of inclusory concurrent counts, those counts must be dismissed and the related sentences vacated.

 

, ,

​THE EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENTS) WERE PROPERLY ENFORCED; NINE OF DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY’S CUSTOMERS FOLLOWED PLAINITFFS AFTER THEIR TERMIINATION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment enforcing the nonsolicitation agreements were properly granted. Nine of defendant’s former customers followed plaintiffs after their termination from defendant’s employ:

… “[T]he application of the test of reasonableness of employee restrictive covenants focuses on the particular facts and circumstances giving context to the agreement” … . While such agreements are generally not favored, they can be “justified by the employer’s need to protect itself from unfair competition by former employees” … . “The employer has a legitimate interest in preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the goodwill of a client or customer, which had been created and maintained at the employer’s expense, to the employer’s competitive detriment” … . Here, when plaintiffs joined defendant’s insurance agency, neither had any prior experience in the insurance field, they were not licensed agents, nor did they have any clients or books of business of their own. As to the clients in question here, they were solicited, developed and serviced by defendant. As such, the accounts and clients are the product of defendant’s efforts, financial expenditures and goodwill, all of which defendant has a legitimate interest in protecting. Davis v Marshall & Sterling, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03050, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Here nine of the employer’s customers followed plaintiffs after their termination. Supreme Court properly enforced the nonsolicitation agreements. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

,

​FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A LINCOLN HEARING TO DETERMINE THE WISHES OF THE CHILD, WHO WAS ABOUT TO TURN 16, IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have held a Lincoln hearing in this modification of custody proceeding:

We find that Family Court abused its discretion in denying the attorney for the child’s request for a Lincoln hearing to aid in the court’s determination of whether a change in circumstances had occurred. While the determination of whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing lies within Family Court’s discretion, it is indeed the preferred method for ascertaining the child’s wishes … . At the time of the hearing, the child was six days shy of being 16 years old and the mother’s primary argument in support of her petition was that the child preferred to reside with her in Florida. “[A] Lincoln hearing would have provided the court with significant pieces of information it needed to make the soundest possible decision” …  . The wishes of this soon-to-be 16-year-old child, although not determinative, should have been considered, including any insight he may have provided as to the current status of his relationship with each parent …  . It was improper for Family Court to simply presume the child preferred to reside with his mother, as the fundamental purpose of a Lincoln hearing “is to ascertain a child’s preferences and concerns” … . Matter of Samantha WW. v Malek XX., 2023 NY Slip Op 03052, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Here it was an abuse of discretion to fail to hold a Lincoln hearing to determine the wishes of the child, who was nearly 16, in this custody modification proceeding.

 

,

​ALTHOUGH A PURPOSE OF THE WATERSHED CORPORATION WAS TO ENSURE CLEAN DRINKING WATER FOR NEW YORK CITY; OTHER PURPOSES INCLUDED FOSTERING DEVELOPMENT; THEREFORE THE UPSTATE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A CHARITABLE OR PUBLIC USE TAX EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 420-A (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the upstate property owned by the Catskill Watershed Corporation (petitioner) was not entitled to a charitable or public purpose exemption from the town’s property tax. Although a purpose of the corporation was to ensure clean drinking water for New York City, the fact that the purposes included economic development precluded the charitable or public purpose tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 420-a:

… [P]etitioner’s certificate of incorporation expressly provides that it is formed for, among other things, “the exclusively charitable or public purposes of . . . aiding that part of the . . . [community in the Watershed] by attracting new commerce and industry to such area and by encouraging the development of, or retention of, commerce and industry in such area, and lessening the burdens of government and acting in the public interest.” These near-identical reasons were rejected by the Court of Appeals, which acknowledged that, even though a property may very well provide a laudable “public benefit,” where the overall use is “to further economic development and lessen the burdens of government, [such use] cannot be deemed ‘charitable’ within the meaning of section 420-a (1) (a)” … . Nor do we find convincing petitioner’s federal tax-exempt status, as “evidence of an organization’s section 501 (c) (3) status, by itself, does not create a presumption that the entity is entitled to a tax exemption under [RPTL 420-a]” — particularly given that the “IRS’s definition of what constitutes an exempt ‘charitable purpose’ is exceedingly broad” … . Matter of Catskill Watershed Corp. v Assessor of the Town of Middletown, 2023 NY Slip Op 03055, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Even if a purpose of a corporation is to benefit the public (here the protection of drinking water), where other purposes are designed to foster development, the property owned by the corporation is not entitled to a charitable or public purpose exemption from property tax pursuant to RPTL 420-a.

 

,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition for permission to relocate to Florida with the children should have been granted:

“Taken as a whole, the mother’s testimony demonstrated . . . that the mother’s reasons for wanting to relocate were familial and economic and that the proposed relocation would likely enhance the lives of the mother and the child[ren] economically and emotionally” … . * * *

Although we recognize the importance of an ongoing relationship between the father and the children, the … proof reflects that the mother is, by far, the more involved parent and the primary caregiver, that the lives of the mother and the children would be enhanced by the relocation to Florida, that the children want to make that move, and that the mother is willing to facilitate significant visitation between the children and the father if it occurs. As such, Family Court’s determination denying the mother’s relocation request is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . Matter of Amber GG. v Eric HH., 2023 NY Slip Op 03059, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Mother demonstrated she was the more involved parent and that she and her children would be better off financially and emotionally if she moved near her relatives in Florida. She further demonstrated she is willing to facilitate significant visitation with father. Her petition to relocate should have been granted.

 

, , ,

IN THIS MURDER TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP UNCHARGED CRIMES WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRETRIAL SANDOVAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE DID NOT INTERVENE; THE DEFENSE DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s murder and weapons convictions, determined prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene (there were no defense objections) required a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly mentioned uncharged crimes which were not brought up in the Sandoval proceedings:

During their direct case, however, the People elicited testimony from three different witnesses about a prior bad act that had not been included in their Sandoval/Molineux proffer.  * * *

The prosecutor asked defendant whether the incident, which had occurred approximately a decade earlier, involved him shooting a rifle toward another person. Defendant denied this, and he was then questioned as to whether he tried to reload the rifle but was stopped by bystanders, which he also denied. The prosecutor then asked, “is that how you handle your confrontations, you grab a gun and just fire away?” The prosecutor continued the questioning in this vein by asking defendant whether it was “[k]ind of like . . . … [when] you just fired a warning shot out the window, correct?” The prosecutor subsequently cross-examined defendant relative to the incident involving him shooting someone off a motorcycle — which … was not included in the People’s Sandoval/Molineux motion. … [T]he prosecutor inquired as to whether defendant had stated in a recorded jail call that another inmate had urinated in his bed and that, if he caught who did it, he would stab that person in the neck with a pencil. * * *

… [T]he magnitude of the prosecutor’s misconduct was the fact that County Court made no effort to intervene or otherwise attempt to minimize or alleviate the prejudice being caused to defendant…. . People v Nellis, 2023 NY Slip Op 03046, Third Dept 5-8-23

Practice Point: Although the convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene warranted a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly brought up uncharged crimes which were not ruled upon in the Sandoval proceedings.

 

,

THE PROOF FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD WAS PRIMARILY BASED UPON HIS INCARCERATION, WHICH WAS NOT SUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a concurrence, determined the proof respondent father neglected the child was insufficient. The neglect finding appeared to be primarily based upon father’s incarceration:

We note that a determination of whether respondent neglected the child was complicated by the fact that no DNA analysis was performed to establish paternity until late 2020, over a year after the child’s birth. * * *

At the fact-finding hearing, … most of the proof upon which petitioner relied was … hearsay. Although no objections were raised, the caseworker testified to the mother’s statements regarding paternity and to respondent’s mother’s statements. In the end, petitioner’s proof failed to establish how respondent’s plan to have his mother care for the child fell below the “minimum degree of care” or how it impaired the child or placed him in imminent danger of becoming impaired … . Petitioner’s proof seemed to be predicated solely on respondent’s incarceration, which cannot alone form the basis for a neglect finding … . Due to the accumulation of errors by petitioner, and the insufficiency of its proof, we find that petitioner failed to establish that respondent neglected the subject child … . Matter of Elijah AA. (Alexander AA.), 2023 NY Slip Op 02812, Third Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Here the proof father neglected the child was insufficient. Despite father’s request, a paternity test was not performed for more than a year after the child’s birth. Once father was incarcerated two months before the child’s birth, his mother refused to help out with care for the child, but father was not so informed. Neglect cannot be based solely on father’s incarceration.

 

, ,

THE CONVICTION UPON WHICH DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED WAS MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT OFFENSE AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PORTION OF THE 10-YEAR PERIOD WAS TOLLED BY INCARCERATION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender and remitting the matter for a hearing. determined the People did not submit evidence demonstrating when defendant was incarcerated such that the 10-year look-back period for the prior felony conviction could be calculated. The court noted that the issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [D]efendant contends that he was not properly sentenced as a second felony offender. … [D]efendant was not required to preserve such a claim where, as here, the purported illegality is plain “from the face of the appellate record” … . … [W]e agree with defendant that the record reflects that his April 11, 2011 sentence on his predicate felony conviction was imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the instant offense, which occurred on July 6, 2021 … , and the People failed to meet their burden of showing that the 10-year look-back period was tolled by any periods of incarceration … . At sentencing, defendant admitted to the prior offense, but the People’s predicate felony statement did not set forth defendant’s dates of incarceration … . Since the record fails to disclose the legality of sentencing defendant as a second felony offender, the matter must be remitted for a hearing on this issue and resentencing … . People v McCall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02719, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the People’s failure to submit proof of defendant’s prior incarceration made it impossible to determine whether the 10-year look-back period for a prior felony was tolled. Defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing and resentencing.

 

,

THE OFFICE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING (ORES) CONDUCTED A PROPER REVIEW BEFORE ISSUING THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITING OF MAJOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) had conducted a proper review before issuing regulations concerning the siting of major renewable energy facilities. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [P]etitioners — who include numerous municipalities, municipal corporations and private entities — commenced the instant combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, seeking, among other things, to annul the regulations and direct ORES to engage in a proper SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] review. Specifically, petitioners alleged that, among other things, ORES: (1) mischaracterized the action as an unlisted action rather than a type I action; (2) failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the regulations; (3) violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (4) violated the express terms of Executive Law § 94-c. * * *

… [W]e agree with petitioners’ threshold argument that ORES misclassified this action as unlisted, rather than type I. … … [T]he promulgation of the regulations should have been classified as a type I action that would carry the presumption of requiring preparation of an EIS [Environment Impact Statement] … . However, “a misclassification does not always lead to the annulment of the negative declaration if the lead agency conducts the equivalent of a type I review notwithstanding the misclassification” … , and, notably, “a type I action does not, per se, necessitate the filing of an EIS” … . * * *

A review of the vast record reveals that ORES took a thorough and hard look at the potential negative environmental impacts associated with the proposed regulations. Matter of Town of Copake v New York State Off. of Renewable Energy Siting, 2023 NY Slip Op 02721, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: The newly created Office of Renewable Energy Siting conducted a proper review before issuing the challenged regulations concerning the siting of major renewable energy facilities.

 

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