You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the “special errand” exception applied and claimant, who was injured on his way to the police precinct after being called to investigate a grand larceny, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits. Although injury on the way to work is usually not covered, here claimant had already coordinated an investigation into the grand larceny and was on his way to pick up his police vehicle at the time of the traffic accident:

At the hearing, there was testimony from the employer’s witness that claimant’s shift and overtime pay did not begin until claimant arrived at the police station and checked out a police vehicle. Even if true, however, these facts are not dispositive of whether the special errand exception applies. Irrespective of when claimant’s overtime pay began, the record reflects that claimant was contacted at 4:15 a.m., at which time claimant began his command and coordination of the criminal investigation of the grand larceny. It was at this point that claimant was engaged in a special errand, as he was then required to report to work early in order to pick up a police vehicle so that he could proceed directly to the crime scene in that vehicle. Although claimant testified that he traveled to the police station along his “usual geographical” route, the work-related activity that claimant was encouraged/required by his employer to do and performed for the employer’s benefit upon being called in early while on standby required claimant to “alter[ ] the usual . . . temporal scheme of travel, thereby altering the risks to which [claimant was] usually exposed during normal travel” (Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth., 85 NY2d at 479 …). The Board identified the correct standard articulated by the Court of Appeals but misapplied the special errand exception by overlooking the altered temporal scheme of claimant’s travel and significance of the work-related activity performed by claimant for the employer’s benefit upon being contacted by the employer while on standby … . Matter of Serrata v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2023 NY Slip Op 02725, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Injury in a traffic accident on the way to work is not covered by Workers’ Compensation. Here, however,, the “special errand” exception applied because claimant, a police officer, was engaged in an ongoing investigation and was driving to the precinct to pick up his police vehicle when the accident occurred.

 

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE STRESS CAUSED BY INTERACTION WITH CLAIMANT’S SUPERVISOR AND CLAIMANT’S HEART ATTACK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the evidence supported a causal relationship between the stress caused by interaction with claimant’s supervisor and the subsequent heart attack:

We agree with claimant’s contention that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence as its finding that claimant did not sustain a physical injury is inconsistent with the medical evidence as well as its own finding that claimant sustained a myocardial infarction. The sole medical evidence presented was that from Leslie Parikh, a cardiologist who treated claimant at the emergency room. Parikh testified unequivocally that claimant was diagnosed as suffering a myocardial infarction based upon the elevated troponin levels in claimant’s blood, which was consistent with a stress event on the heart, and opined that the heart attack was causally-related to claimant’s interaction with her supervisor at work. Based on this uncontroverted evidence, the Board, in fact, found that claimant suffered a myocardial infarction causally-related to work.

The Board, nevertheless, found that claimant did not sustain a physical injury, characterizing the incident as claimant having been “in mild emotional distress and . . . experience[ing] a stress event.” …  This is contrary to the unrefuted and unequivocal medical evidence and diagnosis that claimant suffered a myocardial infarction. Matter of DiMeo v Trinity Health Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02731, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: The treating physician determined claimants’ heart attack was caused by stress from interaction with claimant’s supervisor. Claimant was entitled to Worders’ Compensation benefits.

 

THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPTL 1125 IN THIS PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county (petitioner) in this real property tax foreclosure case did not demonstrate the respondent received notice of the foreclosure as required by RPTL 1125 and a recent Court of Appeals ruling:

In James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga (__ NY3d ___, 2023 NY Slip Op 01469 [2023], revg 195 AD3d 1359 [3d Dept 2021]), the Court ruled that RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) contains no presumption of service and that “an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) . . . despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by [RPTL] 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” (id. at *3). Here, petitioner’s attorney avers in support of its motion for summary judgment that “affidavits documenting compliance with all RPTL requirements for this proceeding have been publicly filed with the [c]ounty [c]lerk as a part of the judgment roll therein; and, assuming without conceding, that any noticing defects as to [a]nswerants occurred, by service of an [a]nswer therein [a]nswerants concedes actual notice of the pendency of this proceeding and its applicability to the above said parcel, thereby as a matter of law obviating any such defects.” Although RPTL 1125 (1) (b) “contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance” (id.), this generic language failed to affirmatively establish compliance with the statutory mailing requirements as it failed to establish that the notice of foreclosure was mailed to respondent’s actual mailing address or the last address listed in petitioner’s records and that the records had been searched to verify that the mailings to respondent were not returned … . Matter of County of Albany (Johnson), 2023 NY Slip Op 02564, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Here the county failed to prove strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPTL 1125 precluding summary judgment in this real property tax foreclosure case.

 

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED PRIOR TO FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECTIVE CONDITION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant building owner, 797 Broadway, did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the alleged loose elevator threshold plate over which plaintiff slipped and fell:

… 797 Broadway submitted the sworn affidavit of David Fallati, who … acted as the property manager for the building. Fallati stated that he visited the building twice a week, “including the time period of the alleged incident.” According to Fallati, he did not observe, or receive complaints about, any tripping hazards near the elevator threshold area where the accident occurred. We find that this proof was insufficient to establish that 797 Broadway lacked constructive notice of the condition of the threshold plate. Unlike trip-and-fall cases where the specific area in question was inspected on the date of the accident … . Fallati’s vague affidavit, in which he only stated generally that his inspections occurred twice per week, did not indicate when he had last inspected the elevator threshold area prior to plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the Fallati affidavit failed to eliminate all factual questions “as to whether the alleged dangerous condition . . . existed for a sufficient period of time prior to plaintiff’s fall to permit [797 Broadway] to discover it and take remedial action” … . Lloyd v 797 Broadway Group, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02573, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Without sufficient proof when the area of the slip and fall was last inspected the defendant cannot demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition.

 

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MEASURES TAKEN TO PREVENT THE LADDER FROM FALLING, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. Plaintiff brought his own ladder to the job and the feet of the ladder apparently slipped away from the wall. Plaintiff alleged the ladder should have been secured in some way (i.e., a person should have been holding the ladder):

… [T]here is no dispute that plaintiff used his own equipment, which does not preclude liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . The testimony as to the ladder’s functionality at the time of the accident does not aid defendants, as there is no dispute “that no one was holding the ladder from which plaintiff fell when it suddenly shifted or wobbled, and that no safety devices were provided to prevent the ladder from slipping or plaintiff from falling if it did” … . Nor is there some indication that plaintiff was recalcitrant in deliberately refusing available safety devices … . Barnhardt v Richard G. Rosetti, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02574, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. The fact that plaintiff was using his own ladder did not preclude recovery.

 

,

THE LEGISLATION ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDS TO BE USED TO CONSTRUCT A $1.4 BILLION STADIUM FOR THE BUFFALO BILLS IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the statutes authorizing the use of public funds to construct a stadium for the Buffalo Bills are constitutional:

… [T]he NY Constitution establishes that “[t]he money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking” (NY Const, article VII, § 8 [1]). “[T]he appropriate standard for resolving a challenge to an appropriation, whether under article VIII, § 1 or article VII, § 8 (1),” is that “an appropriation is valid where it has a predominant public purpose and any private benefit is merely incidental” … . Moreover, “it is undisputed that article VII, § 8 (1) permits the granting of public funds to public benefit corporations for a public purpose” … and expenditures for stadiums have expressly been found to have a public purpose …  Further, “[b]ecause public benefit corporations … benefit from a status separate and apart from the State, money passed to public corporations consequently cannot be subject to the article VII, § 8 (1) prohibition against gifting or loaning state money as such money is no longer in the control of the State” … . Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02575, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Statutes allowing public funds to be used for the construction of a stadium for the Buffalo Bills are constitutional.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A SIROIS HEARING ON WHETHER HE PROCURED THE VICTIM’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was entitled to a Sirois hearing. The People argued the victim’s statement should be placed in evidence because the defendant had procured her silence at trial. But the evidence on the issue was conflicting, necessitating a hearing:

… “[D]efendant should have been afforded an opportunity to test the causal link between [the victim’s refusal to testify at trial and the jail calls], as [defendant] requested, at a separate hearing” … . Although the People contend that a hearing was not necessary because the jail calls “so overwhelming[ly]” establish that the victim’s silence was procured by defendant’s misconduct, “this conclusion . . . is not the test inasmuch as [this Court] cannot evaluate the record in its present state since no hearing was held” … . Moreover, although a defendant may waive a hearing … , that did not occur here. There is no evidence in the record that defendant agreed to forego a hearing or agreed to proceed without further inquiry. In fact, when Supreme Court ruled on the ultimate Sirois issue, rather than on whether the People had “allege[d] specific facts which demonstrate a distinct possibility that a criminal defendant has engaged in witness tampering” such that a hearing was required … , defendant’s trial counsel, the next day, prior to any opening statements, requested a hearing … . The court, however, refused this request, reiterating that it found that the People met their ultimate burden on their submissions. Given this, we find that Supreme Court erred by casting aside “the constitutionally guaranteed truth-testing devices of confrontation and cross-examination … . People v Robinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence about whether a defendant procured a witness’s refusal to testify, the judge should not rule on it without holding a hearing.

 

, , , ,

THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THAT DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE IS THE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, NOT THE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE HOMICIDE OCCURRED; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department (1) granted the writ of coram nobis based upon appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue, and (2) ordered a new trial on the second degree murder charge because the jury instruction on depraved indifference was defective. Although the issue was not preserved, the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice:

Defendant asserts that County Court’s instructions to the jury regarding depraved indifference murder were consistent with the overruled objective standard set forth in People v Register (60 NY2d 270 [1983] …), and therefore the court’s instructions failed to explain the requisite culpable mental state as required by People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]). We agree. In discharging its duty to deliver a charge to the jury, “[a] court must instruct the jury regarding both the ‘fundamental legal principles applicable to criminal cases in general’ and those ‘material legal principles applicable to the particular case’ ” (… CPL 300.10 [1], [2]). At the time of defendant’s trial, the Court of Appeals had already held that “depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state” … . As a result, “under Feingold, it is not the circumstances under which the homicide occurred that determines whether [a] defendant is guilty of depraved indifference murder, but rather [the] defendant’s mental state at the time the crime occurred” … .

Upon our review of the record, which reflects that County Court had twice instructed the jury with the overruled objective standard, “the jury charge did not unambiguously state that depraved indifference was the culpable mental state for the crime with which defendant was charged, [and therefore] we cannot conclude that the jury, hearing the whole charge, would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at a decision” … . People v Weaver, 2023 NY Slip Op 02352, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The depraved indifference jury instruction was similar to the overruled objective standard requiring a new trial. Depraved indifference is the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime, not the circumstances of the commission of the homicide.

Practice Point: Although the issue was not preserved, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it on appeal. Here the writ of coram nobis was granted, the conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

 

,

PAROLEES DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; HERE THE SEARCH BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS BASED UPON A TIP FROM DEFENDANT’S MOTHER; THE SEARCH WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ DUTIES; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a comprehensive dissent, determined the parole officers’ search of defendant-parolee’s residence based upon a tip from his mother was proper. Mother, with whom defendant resided, said she saw a picture of defendant with a gun. In the search extended magazines and gun parts were found in defendant’s bedroom:

The general rules and conditions of release typically require a parolee to submit to a warrantless search by his or her parole officer … . The record evinces that defendant executed such a document. However, “a parolee does not surrender his or her constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, [and] what may be unreasonable with respect to an individual who is not on parole may be reasonable with respect to one who is. Accordingly, a search of a parolee undertaken by a parole officer is constitutional if the conduct of the parole officer was rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty and was substantially related to the performance of duty in the particular circumstances” … .

* * * Since the information concerning defendant’s possible violation of his parole conditions came from his mother, there existed a legitimate reason for the search undertaken and it was substantially related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties … . People v Spirito, 2023 NY Slip Op 02353, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Parolees do not give up the right to contest an unreasonable search. Here the search was prompted by a tip from defendant’s mother and was deemed substantially related to the parole officers’ duties. There was a comprehensive dissent.

 

, ,

SETTING A RETURN DATE LESS THAN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to provide the requisite 20-day notice in an Article 78 petition, under the facts, was not a jurisdictional defect and the dismissal of the petition was an abuse of discretion. Petitioners sought to contest a ruling of the NYS Office of Children and Family Services which refused to find a maltreatment report unfounded re: one of the petitioners:

Pursuant to CPLR 7804 (c), “a notice of petition, together with the petition and affidavits specified in the notice, shall be served . . . at least [20] days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard.” However, CPLR 2001, which has been held to apply to service defects … , authorizes a court to “permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity . . . to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded.” In deciding whether a defect in service is a “technical infirmity” within the scope of CPLR 2001, “courts must be guided by the principle of notice to the [respondent] — notice that must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections” … .

… [I]t is … wholly undisputed that the subject application was not heard on the return date proposed by petitioners, nor was there any appearance before Supreme Court, either held or calendared, prior to respondents’ motion. It is further undisputed that, apart from failing to strictly comply with CPLR 7804 (c), petitioners properly served respondents. Thus, this case is functionally no different than those in which a return date has been omitted from a notice of petition, and such failures have been held to be technical infirmities within the scope of CPLR 2001 … . Given these facts, although the return date on the notice of petition was defective at the time of service, we find that the service effectuated by petitioners was reasonably calculated to apprise respondents of this proceeding and afford them the opportunity to defend against it … . Matter of Naomi R. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 02362, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Here, under the facts, the failure to provide the required 20-day notice (service at least 20 days before the return date) for an Article 78 petition did not prejudice the respondent and was not a jurisdictional defect. The petition should not have been dismissed.

 

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