You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

​ THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT OFFERED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S MASSACHUSETTS CONVICTION CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO CPLR 4540; SECOND FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender, determined the proof of the Massachusetts conviction which was the basis for the second felony offender status was deficient:

… [T]he People offered a copy of a “warrant” transferring defendant from local custody to state prison, as well as a copy of defendant’s public docket report. Both documents reflect defendant’s conviction in Massachusetts of armed robbery, bear the seal of the Massachusetts Superior Court and contain the signature of a court official attesting that such documents are true copies. However, the People’s submissions “lacked the certificate, under seal, showing that the attestor was the legal custodian of the records and that this signature was genuine as required by CPLR 4540 [c]” …  As a result of such failure, we vacate defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender, as well as the resulting sentence, and remit this matter to County Court for a new second felony offender hearing, at which time the People will have an opportunity to overcome the technical deficiencies in their proof … . People v Caraballo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01029, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: To prove a foreign conviction the relevant document must be certified in accordance with CPLR 4540 (c).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE REQUIRED 20-DAY NOTICE OF THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING, HE CAN APPEAL THE UPWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL THREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner could appeal the 2006 level three sex offender risk level classification, despite his failure to appear at the hearing, because he was not given 20-days notice prior to the hearing:

Although the hearing took place on June 25, 2003, defendant was only advised of it in a letter dated June 11, 2003.Accordingly, defendant’s due process rights were violated given that he was not afforded the minimum 20-day notice as required by statute … . The People respond that defendant explained in a letter sent after the June 2003 hearing that he chose not to attend that hearing because he did not think he would be classified at risk level three. This letter, however, postdated the hearing and any explanation made therein does not amount to a waiver of the right to appear at the hearing. Furthermore, defendant’s posthearing explanation does not obviate the notice requirements that defendant must be statutorily given prior to the hearing. People v Lockrow, 2023 NY Slip Op 01030, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was not given the required 20-day notice of the upcoming SORA risk level hearing, which violated his due process rights. He therefore could appeal the upward departure to level three.

 

, ,

COVID STIMULUS PAYMENTS WERE ADVANCE TAX REFUNDS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, NOT PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO MOTHER AS CHILD SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the COVID stimulus payments were advance tax refunds constituting marital property subject to equitable distribution in this divorce/family offense proceeding. Family Court had ordered father to turn over the stimulus payments to mother as temporary child support:

… [F]ather argues that the federal stimulus payments are subject to equitable distribution and, therefore, Family Court did not have jurisdiction to direct him to remit them to the mother. We agree. “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” … . In response to the global pandemic, Congress enacted several economic stimulus payments which created advance refunds of tax credits. As relevant here, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) … provided eligible individuals an “advance refund amount” of the applicable tax credit of $500 for each qualifying child … . Thereafter, eligible individuals were entitled to an additional “advance refund” of the applicable tax credit of $600 for each qualifying child under the Tax Relief Act of 2020 … .

… [T]hese federal stimulus payments were not paid “for the benefit of the minor children,” but they were the parties’ advance refund for a tax credit earned pursuant to their last tax return, which was jointly filed, and which was partially measured by the number of children the tax filers had listed as dependents … . Generally, a tax refund is marital property and subject to equitable distribution by Supreme Court … . Although, within the context of a family offense petition, Family Court may issue an order for temporary child support (see Family Ct Act § 828 [4]), and there could be appropriate circumstances where a party’s tax refund may be seized to satisfy child support obligations … , those circumstances are not present here. Matter of Josefina O. v Francisco P., 2023 NY Slip Op 01031, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: COVID stimulus payments were advance tax refunds subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding which should not have been awarded to mother as child support.

 

A WORKER WHO WAS INJURED IN NEW YORK BUT LIVES IN NEW JERSEY CAN SEEK TREATMENT FROM A NEW JERSEY DOCTOR WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, EVEN IF THE NEW JERSEY PHYSICIAN IS ALSO LICENSED IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant, who was injured in New York but resided in New Jersey, was not required to seek treatment from a New Jersey doctor who was authorized to provide treatment by the Board, even where, as here, the New Jersey doctor is also licensed in New York:

“Generally, a workers’ compensation claimant who is injured in New York is entitled to treatment by a physician of his or her choice so long as the physician is licensed to practice in New York and has been authorized by the Board to provide care and treatment to claimants” … . Nevertheless, under our established precedent, “claimants who were injured in New York but [reside in] other states are entitled to receive treatment from qualified physicians in their [home] state” … , as the statutory authorization requirements “could not have been intended to prohibit the retention of a physician in another State in appropriate circumstances” … . We find no basis to deviate from our precedent here, where claimant received medical treatment in his home state of New Jersey from a New Jersey licensed physician.

… 12 NYCRR 323.1 provides … that a New York licensed physician is permitted to seek authorization from the Board to provide medical services under the Workers’ Compensation Law and, being so permitted, “must obtain such authorization prior to treating injured workers under the Workers’ Compensation Law” … . We do not, however, read this provision to require a physician who provides medical services in another state and under a license obtained in that state to nevertheless seek authorization from the Board prior to treating a claimant merely because he or she also happens to be licensed in New York. Matter of Gomez v Board of Mgrs. of Cipriani, 2023 NY Slip Op 00900, Third Dept 2-26-23

Practice Point. A worker who resides in New Jersey and was injured in New York can seek treatment from a New Jersey doctor who is not authorized by the Worker’s Compensation Board, even if the New Jersey doctor is also licensed in New York.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WHEN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS MADE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED AND PROSECUTED; THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT BEFORE COUNTY COURT, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined the fact that the judge’s law clerk was District Attorney at the time of defendant’s indictment and prosecution presented the appearance of a conflict of interest:

… [T]he law clerk here does not appear to have been directly involved in defendant’s case during her term as District Attorney, nor do the allegations contained within defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion implicate the law clerk’s conduct in her former capacity as District Attorney. That said, it has been observed that “[a] law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function” … , and it is well settled that “[n]ot only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well” … . Accordingly, it was an improvident exercise of County Court’s discretion to rule upon defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion under these circumstances … . People v Thornton, 2023 NY Slip Op 00460, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Although the issue was not raised in County Court, the Third Department considered the issue in the interest of justice and reversed the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. The judge’s law clerk was the District Attorney at the time defendant was indicted and prosecuted.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE RECORD WAS SILENT ON WHETHER THE POLICE, WHO DID NOT APPLY FOR A NO-KNOCK WARRANT, ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE OCCUPANTS AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL UNDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS), THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN UNAUTHORIZED NO-KNOCK ENTRY AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the issue whether the police did not give proper notice to the occupants prior to entering and searching premises was not preserved for appeal. The two dissenters argued the issue can be addressed by the appellate court under the ineffective-assistance argument (no motion to suppress based on failure to provide proper notice before entering) and the seized evidence should have been suppressed. The police did not apply for a no-knock warrant and, according to the dissent, entered the apartment using a battering ram before announcing their presence:

… [T]he record is silent as to what the police said or did prior to effectuating entry into the apartment. Thus, without resort to inappropriate speculation, it simply cannot be concluded from the record before us that the police failed to knock and announce their presence before forcefully entering the apartment. * * *

From the dissent:

In our view, the record confirms, by the police officers’ own trial testimony, that they did not provide any advance notice prior to entering the apartment where defendant was ultimately apprehended. The record shows that members of the involved emergency response team (hereinafter ERT) entered the apartment through a rear door into a kitchen area that led to a living room. When asked how the door was opened, Jason Blowers — a police officer with the City of Johnstown Police Department — explained that “the breacher opened the door, the mechanical breach . . . . He hit the door with a ram.” Sergeant Michael Pendrick, the first member of the ERT to enter the apartment, confirmed as much, testifying: “[a]s we approached the rear apartment door . . . another officer had breached the door, the door popped open.” People v Hayward, 2023 NY Slip Op 00461, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The majority found the record silent on whether the police, who did not apply for a no-knock warrant, entered the apartment without giving proper notice to the occupants and held the issue was not preserved for appeal. The two-justice dissent argued the issue could be addressed on appeal as ineffective-assistance (failure to move to suppress) and the evidence demonstrated the police entered with a battering ram before announcing their presence.

 

THE BOARD’S RULING THAT CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DELIVERY SERVICE WAS UPHELD; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE FACTS WERE MOST SIMILAR TO ANOTHER DECISION INVOLVING THE SAME EMPLOYER WHERE THE COURT FOUND NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, upheld the Unemployment Insurance Board’s ruling that claimant was an employee of the delivery service (NEL) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [A]fter claimant applied to be a delivery driver, NEL conducted a screening process that included a verification of claimant’s driver’s license, a Department of Motor Vehicles background check and proof by claimant of relevant insurance coverage. Thereafter, NEL and claimant executed a written “Owner Operator Agreement,” wherein claimant was required, among other things, to provide a safe vehicle, maintain relevant licenses and insurance and to provide NEL with invoices for completed client engagements in order to be paid. Claimant and NEL negotiated a set rate of pay and claimant was responsible for all expenses, including the cost of fuel and equipment, but NEL provided that claimant’s pay could be increased during times of high fuel prices by way of a fuel surcharge. Claimant was required to pay an administrative fee to NEL for each day of provided services. Claimant could refuse any assignment and could subcontract out an accepted assignment. If an accepted assignment could not be completed, claimant was required to notify NEL, and it was then NEL that provided another delivery driver. NEL also provided claimant with the client’s address and the time that claimant was to report there. Any complaints made to NEL’s client regarding claimant were forwarded to NEL, which NEL handled.

It is true that claimant bears some similarities to the claimant in Matter of Pasini (Northeast Logistics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (204 AD3d 1187 [3d Dept 2022]). The facts here, however, are more in line with Matter of Legros (Northeast Logistics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (205 AD3d 1245 [3d Dept 2022]) and Matter of Rivera (Northeast Logistics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (204 AD3d 1185 [3d Dept 2022]), where the finding of an employment relationship was upheld. That said, although there is evidence in the record that could support a contrary determination, in view of the evidence credited by the Board, substantial evidence supports the finding that an employment relationship exists … .

From the dissent:

Given the distinct similarity between the circumstances here and in Pasini, it is my view that the record lacks substantial evidence of the requisite control to establish an employer-employee relationship. Matter of McIntyre (Northeast Logistics, Inc.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00465.Third Dept 1-2-23

Practice Point: This case illustrates the importance of precedent based on similar facts in unemployment-insurance cases. Here the majority held the facts were similar to another case involving the same employer where an employment relationship was found. The dissent argued the facts were most similar to another case involving the same employer where no employment relationship was not found.

 

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER FELL TWICE AT NIGHT WHILE INVESTIGATING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY; HE FELL IN A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE WHEN CHECKING OUT A HOUSE AND HE FELL DOWN SOME STAIRS CHECKING OUT A PARKING LOT; NEITHER FALL WAS A COMPENSABLE “ACCIDENT” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the two falls by petitioner police officer were not compensable “accidents” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law and petitioner was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. The opinion discusses in some depth the difficulties of determining what is and what is not an “accident” in this context:

… [P]etitioner testified … he was assigned to the midnight shift and was in his patrol car when, at approximately 1:00 a.m., he became suspicious upon observing a light coming from the second floor of a house that was under construction. According to petitioner, it was “very dark” around the house due to the lack of streetlights in the area. Petitioner took a flashlight and began walking around the perimeter of the house, illuminating the second floor of the house as he walked, in accordance with police protocol. As he continued walking the perimeter of the house, petitioner fell in a three-foot-deep hole in the ground that had been dug alongside the house. As petitioner’s regular employment duties included conducting investigations in the dark, the risk that he might fall due to an unseen condition while engaged in such activity is an inherent risk of that employment … .

… [P]etitioner testified that, at approximately 2:00 a.m. … , he was investigating a report of a “suspicious party going through cars in a parking lot.” According to petitioner, it was drizzling that morning, and the area of the parking lot was dark. Petitioner was using a flashlight and, as he descended a wooden stairway that connected the parking lot to a baseball field, he was illuminating the field with the flashlight when he slipped and fell. Petitioner testified that, after his fall, he observed “green algae [and] mold,” as well as leaves, on the stairs. “When carrying out some police duties, an officer on foot may encounter, as part of the work being performed, a vast array of conditions, many of which are not easily traversed and can cause a fall. Encountering such conditions while actively engaged in police duties often is not an unexpected event, and the Comptroller may find a fall caused thereby to be an inherent risk of the job” … . Matter of Compagnone v DiNapoli, 2023 NY Slip Op 00354, Third Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: This opinion should be consulted when trying to determine what constitutes a compensable “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S RAPE CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON HIS UNCORROBORATED ADMISSION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one count of rape in the second degree, determined there was no corroboration of defendant’s admission to having sex with the victim. Therefore, the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

After reviewing the record, we find no evidence corroborating defendant’s admission that he and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse “a few times” in August 2017. Due to the lack of corroboration, the evidence is legally insufficient to support that conviction, and the charge under count 1 must be dismissed … . People v Bateman, 2023 NY Slip Op 00249, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: A conviction which rests solely on an uncorroborated admission is not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

 

,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF DECEDENT’S TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND PETITIONER’S UNDUE INFLUENCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE WILL SUBMITTED FOR PROBATE BY PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the respondent’s (decedent’s niece’s) objections to the probate of the will submitted by petitioner (decedent’s agent) should not have been dismissed. Decedent, in a 2011 will, made respondent the sole beneficiary of his estate. Subsequently decedent executed a 2015 will making petitioner the sole beneficiary of his estate. The Third Department found summary judgment dismissing respondent’s objections was inappropriate because there was conflicting evidence of decedent’s testamentary capacity and petitioner’s undue influence:

… [T]he witnesses affirmed that beginning in late 2014, decedent’s personal hygiene declined, he acted unusual, was confused and forgetful. The medical records, spanning from the fall of 2014, including a contemporaneous record four days subsequent to the execution of the 2015 will, are replete with observations that decedent refused to care for himself resulting in numerous hospitalizations for hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections. The records contain multiple entries that decedent suffered from an altered mental state, confusion and was incoherent. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact regarding decedent’s testamentary capacity … . * * *

Much of the evidence submitted by respondent on the issue of testamentary capacity is also relevant to the issue of undue influence … . Respondent’s witnesses all affirm that while residing at the assisted living facility, decedent was lethargic, frequently complained of being ill, slept a good deal, was unresponsive and was in a weakened state. Decedent’s closest friend described him as being easily manipulated, and stated that he was especially vulnerable to petitioner, with whom he was infatuated. In presenting evidence demonstrating decedent’s physical decline, coupled with his increasing confusion and personality changes, respondent has raised an issue as to whether decedent was unduly influenced by petitioner … . Matter of Linich, 2023 NY Slip Op 00250, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in a contested probate proceeding. Here conflicting evidence of decedent’s testamentary capacity and petitioner’s undue influence precluded summary judgment dismissing respondent’s objections to probate.

 

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