You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PERSONS WHO CAN BE PLACED IN LARGE (AT LEAST 80-BED) ADULT HOMES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cap on the number of seriously mentally ill persons who can be placed in large adult homes (at least an 80-bed capacity) did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

On this record, we conclude that respondent has demonstrated that the admissions cap was implemented to benefit, rather than to discriminate against, persons with serious mental illness … .

… [R]espondent [Commissioner of Health] has demonstrated that the challenged regulations are narrowly tailored to implement the integration mandate of Title II of the ADA and that the “benefit to the [protected class from the subject regulations] . . . clearly outweigh[s] whatever burden may result to them” … . The admissions cap applies only to people with a serious mental illness — those “who have a designated diagnosis of mental illness under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . . . and whose severity and duration of mental illness results in substantial functional disability” (18 NYCRR 487.2 [c] … ). Accordingly, the cap is specifically tailored to the very individuals who are the subject of the integration mandate. Rather than limiting admissions to all adult homes, the regulations apply solely to a subcategory of large adult homes — those certified with at least an 80-bed capacity — where new admissions would increase the population of persons with serious mental illness over the 25% threshold. Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 02365, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The cap on the number of seriously mentally ill persons who can be placed in large adult homes does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities.

 

EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that contracting COVID-19 in the workplace qualifies as an unusual hazard which is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Here the claimant’s husband last worked on March 11, 2020, experienced COVID-10 symptoms on March 13 and died on March 29, 2020. But there was no evidence decedent was exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace:

… “[T]he contraction of COVID-19 in the workplace reasonably qualifies as an unusual hazard, not the natural and unavoidable result of employment and, thus, is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law” … . Nevertheless, whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board, and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed where supported by substantial evidence … . To this end, “the claimant bears the burden of establishing that the subject injury arose out of and in the course of his or her employment” … . …

Claimant offered no evidence or testimony of decedent’s specific exposure to COVID-19 in his workplace. Further, no evidence was presented indicating any cases of COVID-19 among those living or working in the group home where decedent was house manager, or among other employees with whom decedent may have had contact, prior to or contemporaneous with his onset of symptoms. In fact, the employer’s witness testified that decedent was the first known COVID-19 infection in his workplace. Although another worker at the same group home later contracted COVID-19 and succumbed to the disease, the employer’s witness testified that the other worker tested positive two weeks after decedent’s positive test. Moreover, claimant did not know the extent to which, if at all, decedent personally interacted with others at the group home where he worked. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that claimant failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment … . Matter of Holder v Office for People with Dev. Disabilities, 2023 NY Slip Op 02156, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Exposure to and contraction of COVID-19 is an unusual hazard which is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Here however there was no proof decedent contracted COVID-19 at his workplace.

 

,

THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DISMISSED A JUROR WHEN SHE DIDN’T APPEAR WITHOUT MAKING AN INQUIRY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, over a concurrence, determined judge improperly dismissed a juror in the absence of an adequate inquiry:

After juror No. 1 was selected and sworn in, but before jury selection had concluded, County Court made a record that juror No. 1 “needed to go home due to some health issues” but was advised, and agreed, to return the next day at 9:00 a.m. However, as of 9:28 a.m. the next morning, the court noted that juror No. 1 had not returned and, because the juror had left ill the prior day, the court found it “necessary to just replace her with the first alternate at this point.” Defense counsel then registered an exception to the court’s replacement of juror No. 1 … . Thereafter, County Court failed to conduct any inquiry regarding the absence of juror No. 1. When asked whether the court had received any notification from the juror, the court responded, “No. Basically, I don’t have juror number one. She’s just plain not here. She left early yesterday ill . . . . So, we are going to replace juror number one.” Although replacement of a juror is generally left to the court’s discretion, “[w]ithout a reasonably thorough inquiry, . . . the exercise of the court’s discretion on the ultimate issue of whether or not to replace the juror [was] uninformed” … .. County Court was certainly not required to wait two hours before substituting juror No. 1, but, on the record before us, it impermissibly presumed that she was “unavailable for continued service without conducting the requisite reasonably thorough inquiry and determining that [the] juror [was] not likely to appear within two hours” … . People v Watts, 2023 NY Slip Op 02144, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Here a juror didn’t show up at 9:30 a.m. and the judge replaced her without making an inquiry. Defense counsel preserved the error by registering an exception. A new trial was ordered.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing its prior decision after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether it was notified of the tax foreclosure proceeding by defendant county. The Court of Appeals had ruled that, although the county proved the notice was mailed the letters were not returned, plaintiffs could prove the notice was not received by other evidence:

… “[A]lthough the statute contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is,by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance, an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) by other relevant proof, despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by section 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” … . …

Although we are aware that, on its own, failure to receive notice is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … , such failure, when combined with other evidence, can support a reasonable inference that defendants failed to comply with the mailing requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … [I]f the notices were not received, there are only two real possibilities — either the procedure used by defendant County … failed to comply with RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) inasmuch as the wrong address was affixed, or the United States Postal Service made an error. When viewed in conjunction with the further facts that the certified mail tracking history indicated an unknown address and that the return receipt was unstamped, it is reasonable to infer, together with the additional evidence of nonreceipt, that the notices were not correctly mailed and that the County failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02148, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: In this tax foreclosure proceeding, the county submitted prima facie proof it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1125 by submitting proof the letters were mailed and not returned. However, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the notice was not received, which raised a question of fact about whether the county in fact complied with RPAPL 1125.

 

,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; THE JUDGMENT REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable offense under SORA:

… [W]e agree with defendant, as well as the People’s concession, that burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registerable offense under SORA because it is not expressly identified as a “[s]ex offense” pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a) … .

… [T]he judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the provisions thereof certifying defendant as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act and requiring him to register as a sex offender and pay the related sex offender registration fee … . People v Vakhoula, 2023 NY Slip Op 02034, Third Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: Burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable offense under SORA. Conviction does not require registration as a sex offender.

 

, , ,

THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, over a dissent. denied the petition to reinstate the original sentence in the prosecution of the owner of a limousine service. The brakes failed on one of petitioner’s limousines and the driver, 17 passengers and two pedestrians were killed. Petitioner pled guilty to 20 counts of criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to two years of interim probation, community service, followed by a period of probation. When it was discovered that the two-year interim probation was illegal, petitioner appeared before a different judge for resentencing, the respondent in this proceeding. The respondent refused to abide by the plea agreement and informed the petitioner he would impose a prison sentence. Petitioner withdrew his plea and the case was set down for trial. Petitioner then brought this Article 78 petition seeking a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition and specific performance of the plea agreement. In a complex ruling too detailed to fairly summarize here, the relief was denied. The dissenter argued petitioner was entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement:

Mandamus to compel is an extraordinary remedy, commanding “an officer or body to perform a specified ministerial act that is required by law to be performed. It does not lie to enforce a duty that is discretionary” … . * * *

“… [I]mposing a criminal sentence is never ministerial” … . * * *

… [A] review of the merits leads us to conclude that the issuance of a writ [of prohibition] is unwarranted … . A “defendant [is not] entitled to specific performance of [a] plea bargain unless he [or she has] been placed in a ‘no-return position’ in reliance on the plea agreement” … . Matter of Hussain v Lynch, 2023 NY Slip Op 02049, Third Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: This opinion should be consulted for the criteria for a writ of mandamus versus a writ of prohibition in the context of requiring a judge to abide by a plea agreement.

 

THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the second degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of defendant’s murder first degree convictions:

… [W]e agree with defendant’s contention that his convictions for second degree murder (counts 2 and 3) must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of his convictions for murder in the first degree (counts 7, 8 and 9) (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). People v Burton, 2023 NY Slip Op 01919, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree convictions were reversed as inclusory concurrent counts of the murder first degree convictions.

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY PLEAD THE EXCEPTION IN THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE; THEREFORE THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminal mischief conviction, determined the underlying statute includes an exception which must be affirmatively pleaded. The exception was not affirmatively pleaded in the Superior Court Information (SCI):

“In order to determine whether a statute defining a crime contains an exception that must be affirmatively pleaded as an element in the accusatory instrument or a proviso that need not be pleaded but may be raised by the accused as a bar to prosecution or a defense at trial, a court must look to the language of the statute itself” … . To that end, “legislative intent to create an exception that must be affirmatively pleaded has generally been found when the language of exclusion is contained entirely within a Penal Law provision” … . Penal Law § 145.05 (2) provides that “[a] person is guilty of criminal mischief in the third degree when, with intent to damage property of another person, and having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she . . . damages property of another person in an amount exceeding [$250]” … . Inasmuch as the qualifying language is contained within the statute itself, we agree that such language constitutes an exception. Given that count 1 of the 2016 SCI did not allege that defendant had neither a right to cause the property damage at issue nor a reasonable ground to believe that she had such right, that count — charging defendant with criminal mischief in the third degree — is jurisdictionally defective … . People v West, 2023 NY Slip Op 01921, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: If a criminal statute includes language which is deemed an “exception,” the exception must be affirmatively pled. The failure to affirmatively plead an exception renders the count jurisdictionally defective.

 

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, over a dissent, determined petitioner police officer was not entitled to accidental disability benefits for injuries incurred at his desk when he prevented himself from falling over backwards in his chair. When he attempted to roll the chair backwards it caught in a rut and petitioner was injured when he grabbed at a desk to keep from tipping over backwards:

Petitioner acknowledged that he was aware that the flooring at the front desk was in poor condition and that, both on previous occasions and prior to the incident that day, he had observed that there were two ruts in the flooring right behind the desk. Petitioner also testified that, in his estimation, the ruts were “three inches across, maybe a little more.” His testimony also demonstrates that he was aware that the chair he was utilizing that day had wheels and that, when sitting at the desk, those wheels would be in the “general area” of the holes. Given this testimony and the photographs of the floor that were admitted, respondent’s finding that petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the hazard — i.e., that the small wheels catching a depression in the floor would cause the chair to tip — was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, despite other reasonable interpretations. Therefore, the finding that the precipitating event was not unexpected and did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law will not be disturbed … . Matter of Bodenmiller v DiNapoli, 2023 NY Slip Op 01930, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: To constitute an accident under the Retirement and Social Security Law, the incident must be “unexpected.” Here petitioner was aware of the floor-defect which cause his chair to start tipping over backwards when the wheels caught in the defect. Therefore the incident was not “unexpected” within the meaning of the applicable law.

 

, ,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT AN ENUMERATED OFFENSE UNDER SORA, THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant was not required to register as a sex offender because the offense to which he pled guilty, burglary as a sexually motivated felony, is not one of offenses to which SORA applies. In addition, the Third Department held defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [W]e agree with the analysis of our colleagues in the First and Second Departments concluding that registerable offenses subject to SORA are, by application of the clear statutory text, limited to those crimes expressly identified as “[s]ex offense[s]” pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (2) … . As burglary in the third degree as a sexually motivated felony is not among the offenses enumerated therein, we agree that defendant was improperly required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA … . …

During the plea colloquy, County Court did not explain that certain appellate rights would survive the waiver of appeal and instead improperly described the rights to be waived as encompassing “any argument” that defendant might take to a higher court … . The written waiver, in turn, states that “[i]t is [defendant’s] understanding and intention that [his] plea agreement and sentence will be a complete and final disposition of this case.” Although the written appeal waiver also includes qualifying language limiting its application “to all legal issues that can be waived under the law[,]” and the court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel … , we find that the “totality of the circumstances” presented here fails to confirm that defendant understood that some appellate review would survive the waiver … . People v Winter, 2023 NY Slip Op 01820, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: A defendant may not be required to register as a sex offender if convicted of a crime not listed in the Correction Law. Burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not listed.

Practice Point: The failure to inform the defendant that, despite the waiver of appeal, certain issues remain appealable, renders the waiver of appeal invalid.

 

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