You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

THE ABANDONMENT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENT FATHER INTENDED TO FOREGO HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS AND, IN FACT, PETITIONER AFFIRMATIVELY INTERFERED WITH FATHER’S ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner (Schenectady County Department of Social Services) did not demonstrate father (respondent) had abandoned the children and, in fact, had improperly prevented father from visiting the children. The abandonment petition should have been dismissed:

… [P]etitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent evinced an intent to forego his parental rights … . The record demonstrates that respondent filed numerous motions to resume visitation, return his children, intervene in the neglect proceeding against the mother and terminate the children’s placement. During at least one appearance, respondent remarked that he would continue to “battle” for the return of his children, even prompting Family Court to candidly admit that respondent has been an active participant during the entire proceeding … . Respondent had several visits with the children where he inquired if he could obtain their school records and asked what clothing or supplies they needed. The record further reflects that respondent made several inquiries to the caseworker and the mother, including during the delay caused by the pandemic.

… There are several troubling instances in the record where the caseworker or the coordinator cancelled respondent’s scheduled visitation with [*3]the children due to his late confirmation of the scheduled visit or arrival — including one egregious incident where respondent was three minutes late to confirm an appointment for later that day. * * *

Notwithstanding the fact that respondent cancelled one visit due to illness, attended five visits and had seven visits cancelled on him in the foregoing manner, the caseworker then reported to Family Court that respondent had only attended 4 out of 20 scheduled visits. Based on the incorrect information presented by the caseworker — who relied on text messages from the coordinator, who did not testify at the hearing — petitioner was successful in obtaining an order suspending respondent’s visitation with the children in December 2019, thereby making it more difficult for respondent to visit and communicate with the children. Matter of Syri’annah PP. (Sayyid PP.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00252, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Here the caseworkers took steps to affirmatively prevent father from seeing his children. The abandonment petition should have been dismissed for failure to demonstrate father’s intent to forego his parental rights.

 

ALLEGATIONS FATHER DID NOT ABIDE BY THE VISITATION TERMS AND USED DRUGS DURING VISITATION SUPPORTED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s custody modification petition should not have been dismissed. Mother’s allegations that father had not abided by the visitation terms (visits must be in a public place) and father used drugs during visitation adequately alleged a change in circumstances:

To establish a change in circumstances, the party must demonstrate “new developments or changes that have occurred since the previous custody order was entered” … . Testimony at the fact-finding hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence … that the father was not abiding by the visitation terms as set forth in the prior order…. . Specifically, although the prior order required that the father’s visitation occur in a public place, the preponderance of the proof demonstrated that much of it was occurring in private residences or hotels. Moreover, there was also testimony that the father was using drugs during the child’s visits. Given the circumstances of this case, the father’s failure to comply with the visitation terms as set forth in the prior order constitute a change in circumstances … . Matter of Harvey P. v Contrena Q., 2023 NY Slip Op 00257, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Failure to abide by visitation terms can constitute a change in circumstances which will support a modification of custody.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORD SUPPORTED FATHER’S PERMANENT NEGLECT AND THE TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISPENSED WITH THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING ABSENT FATHER’S CONSENT; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined that although the record supported terminating father’s parental rights based upon permanent neglect, Family Court should not have dispensed with the dispositional hearing absent the consent of the parties:

Both petitioner and the attorney for the child share the position that Family Court properly dispensed of the matter without a separate dispositional hearing and, alternatively, that there is sufficient evidence in the record for this Court to render a disposition. However, Family Ct Act § 625 (a) expressly provides that, “[u]pon completion of [a] fact-finding hearing, [a] dispositional hearing may commence immediately after the required findings are made; provided, however, that if all parties consent the court may, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, dispense with the dispositional hearing and make an order of disposition on the basis of competent evidence admitted at the fact-finding hearing” … . Here, the court stated that there was “no need for a further or separate dispositional hearing” before rendering its determination that respondent had permanently neglected the child and terminating his parental rights. However, there is no indication that respondent affirmatively consented to dispense with the hearing and, “absent consent, the requirement of a dispositional hearing may not be circumvented” … . Matter of Harmony F. (William F.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00259, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Here, even though the record supported Family Court’s termination of father’s parental rights, in the absence of father’s consent, Family Court should not have dispensed with the dispositional hearing.

 

,

AFTER A JUROR CAME FORWARD DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SAY SHE THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER IN HIS CAR DURING THE TRIAL AND OTHER JURORS EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL SPECTATORS, THE JUDGE INTERVIEWED EACH JUROR AND PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON A GROSSLY-UNQUALIFIED-JUROR ARGUMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly denied defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict on the ground a juror was grossly unqualified. A juror (No. 6) had come forward during deliberations to say she thought the defendant had followed her in his car during the trial and had concerns for her safety. According to Juror No. 6, other jurors expressed safety concerns with respect to spectators at the trial. The judge interviewed each juror and concluded a mistrial should not be granted:

Upon review of the private colloquy between County Court and juror No. 6, we disagree with the dissent’s view that County Court failed to engage in a probing and tactful inquiry taking into due account the juror’s responses. “The [t]rial [j]udge generally is accorded latitude in making the findings necessary to determine whether a juror is grossly unqualified under CPL 270.35, because that [j]udge is in the best position to assess partiality in an allegedly biased juror”  … .The trial court is tasked with “evaluat[ing] the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case” … . County Court, “[i]n concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, . . . may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on [his or] her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent [him or] her from rendering an impartial verdict” … . This Court likewise should not speculate. People v Fisher, 2023 NY Slip Op 00248, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: After a juror came forward during deliberations to say he had concerns for her safety because she thought defendant had followed her in his car during the trial, the trial judge interviewed her and the other jurors. The majority concluded defendant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

, ,

THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY OF CLAIMANT-INMATE BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS OCCURRED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND WAS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE; THEREFORE THE STATE, AS THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYER, COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the alleged assault and battery by corrections officers occurred within the scope of the officers’ employment at the correctional facility and was reasonably foreseeable. Therefore the state could be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court of Claims had held the assault was conduct outside the scope of the officers’ employment and the state therefore was not liable:

… [W]hile it is our view that the correction officers’ use of force was excessive, the ensuing investigations of the incident effectively condoned the conduct of the correction officers and tacitly found them to be engaged in actions that were within the scope of employment … . To this end, it was claimant that was found guilty of misbehavior for assaulting prison staff, and prison officials determined that the use of force was “consistent with Departmental Rules[,] and [that] the injuries received, both by staff and the involved [incarcerated individual] are accounted for.” This evidence reflects that prison officials determined that the conduct of the correction officers was appropriate under the circumstances and fell within the scope of employment. Finally, in light of claimant’s … report accusing Poupore [one of the corrections officers involved] of inappropriate contact with claimant, which preceded the incident, and Poupore’s knowledge of same, it was clearly foreseeable that a tense encounter could result during further interactions between Poupore and claimant in the context of normal employment-related activities in the prison … . Altogether, we find that the foregoing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the assault occurred within the scope of the correction officers’ employment as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an employment-related activity and that the verdict in this case must be reversed on the facts and the law. Galloway v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00137, Third Dept 1-12-23

Practice Point: The assault and battery of claimant-inmate was deemed to be within the scope of the corrections officers’ employment and foreseeable. Therefore the state, as the officers’ employer, could be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

, ,

NONPUBLIC RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES NEED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW EQUITY OR TRANSFER ASSETS IN EXCESS OF 3% OF THE FACILITIES’ REVENUE; CORPORATE OWNERS NEED NOT INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION; FACILITIES OWNED BY PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES (I.E., LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES) MUST INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in two full-fledged opinions by Justice Lynch, determined that nonpublic residential health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in the calculation of equity withdrawals. Public Health Law 2808 (5) prohibits the withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of the facility’s total revenue without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Health. If the residential health care facility is owned by a corporation, federal and state income taxes are not included in the 3% calculation:

Public Health Law § 2808 (5) (c) responds to the Legislature’s concern that a facility’s improvident withdrawal of substantial assets would compromise the facility’s operation and “occasion irreparable harm within an especially fragile and dependent resident population” … . Given this context, “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes”  are necessarily those that concern a facility’s own financial obligations and expenses … . … . Petitioners do not dispute that, for a pass-through entity, income tax liability is borne by the owner, not the facility. Thus, given the regulatory scheme, income tax payments by such an entity would necessarily be equity withdrawals or asset transfers satisfying the obligation of the owner, not the facility … . In other words, even though such withdrawals are for tax payments, they are not “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes” … . Matter of Brightonian Nursing Home, Inc. v Zucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: Unlike nonpublic health care facilities owned by corporations, nonpublic health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in their calculation of withdrawals from equity. Withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of revenue requires the permission of the Commissioner of Health pursuant to Public Health Law 2802 (5).

 

,

​ THE MAJORITY HELD THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE, FINDING THE CONDUCT WAS NOT “PUBLIC;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CONDUCT WAS “PUBLIC” IN THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN OUTSIDE A DAYCARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the evidence did not establish a family offense (disorderly conduct): The majority and the dissenter disagreed on whether the conduct was “public” in nature:

“[C]ritical to a charge of disorderly conduct is a finding that [the mother’s] disruptive statements and behavior were of a public rather than an individual dimension . . ., which requires proof of an intent to threaten public safety, peace or order” … . “[A] person may be guilty of disorderly conduct only when the situation extends beyond the exchange between the individual disputants to a point where it becomes a potential or immediate public problem” … .

From the dissent:

[The] disruptive behavior outside a daycare program in the direct presence of other adults and children took on a public dimension that was no doubt alarming to the grandmother, the child and the bystanders. Whether intentional or not, such conduct satisfies the reckless component for the charge. On this record, the charge of disorderly conduct within the petition was established by a preponderance of the evidence and should have been sustained (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1], [3] …). Matter of Linda UU. v Dana VV., 2023 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: In order for conduct to amount to disorderly conduct it must have a “public” as opposed to an “individual” dimension. This case shows the distinction can be difficult to discern.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHEN MAINTAINING DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PLAINTIFF’S ASBESTOS-INJURIES; AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR DEFENDANT TO ARGUE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE CAUSATION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether plaintiff (Howard) was exposed to asbestos in his maintenance of defendant’s pumps on Navy submarines: Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that its products did not contribute to plaintiff’s asbestos-injuries:

“In order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant[] bore the initial burden of demonstrating that [its] respective products ‘could not have contributed to the causation’ of [Howard]’s asbestos-related injuries” … . Defendant could not prevail on its motion for summary judgment by “merely pointing to gaps in . . . plaintiff[s’] proof” … . In other words, “[defendant] could not simply argue that plaintiff[s] could not affirmatively prove causation, but rather it had to affirmatively prove, as a matter of law, that there was no causation” … .

… According to Howard [plaintiff], his duties aboard these various vessels required, among other things, that he directly supervise maintenance on defendant’s pumps, which included asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation. Howard stated that he would work in the immediate vicinity of the pumps when the gaskets were removed and scraped from the pumps, and when packing and insulation on the pumps was removed and replaced. Howard v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 2023 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: In a toxic tort case, in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, defendant must demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant’s products did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant will not win a summary judgment motion in this context by arguing plaintiff could not prove causation.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER, A FORMER CORRECTION OFFICER SEEKING REINSTATEMENT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION WHICH FOUND HIM UNFIT; THE WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS, SIGNED BY PETITIONER, WAS A NULLITY (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a former correction officer seeking reinstatement, was entitled to discovery of the records of the psychological examination which found him unfit to serve as a correction officer. The court held that the waiver of the right to review such documents (signed by the petitioner at the outset) was a nullity:

… [W]e do not agree that the limited review procedures established in Correction Law § 8 can lawfully be used to side-step and effectively eviscerate the robust protections set forth in 4 NYCRR 5.9 (e) (3), which directly apply to those seeking reinstatement under Civil Service Law § 71 … . Nevertheless, although both statutes have different purposes — Correction Law § 8 is designed to eliminate applicants “who exhibit psychological disorders that would indicate their unsuitability for the job” … , whereas Civil Service Law § 71 was enacted for the “protection of an employee separated from the service by reason of a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease” … — both purposes can be achieved, and the statutes harmonized by permitting the use of Correction Law § 8 testing while preserving the review procedure set forth in 4 NYCRR 5.9 relative to employees falling within Civil Service Law § 71 … . Notably, despite the use of Correction Law § 8 testing, this matter remains distinctly a Civil Service Law § 71 reinstatement case.

… [P]etitioner is minimally entitled to receive the clandestine psychological report that formed the very basis for the disqualification for reinstatement, as well as all other rights attendant to a hearing held pursuant to article 3 of the State Administrative Procedure Act. … [T]o the extent that petitioner signed a waiver purporting to extinguish these rights, the waiver is a nullity inasmuch as respondent’s policy requiring all applicants to sign the consent and release form is an unpromulgated rule under the definition of “[r]ule” within State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (a) (i), and therefore is without effect … . Matter of Williams v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07280, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Petitioner, a former correction officer seeking reinstatement, was entitled to the records of the psychological exam which found him unfit. The waiver of the right to review the documents, signed by petitioner at the outset, was based upon an unpromulgated rule and therefore was of no effect.

 

, , , ,

BOTH PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER AND THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S BUS WERE DEEMED COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN A RELATED PROCEEDING; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the dismissal of plaintiff bus-driver’s causes of action against the estate of driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s county bus, and against Jewish Family Services (JFS) for whom the decedent-driver was volunteering at the time of the accident. JFS and the county collaborated on a program to drive senior citizens to medical appointments. Plaintiff sued JFS under a respondeat superior theory. Pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, workers’ compensation benefits were plaintiff’s exclusive remedy because both she and the driver of the car had been deemed county employees in a related action:

A review of the papers supporting [the county’s] cross motion [in the related proceeding] establishes, however, that [the county] focused upon the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Plaintiff thereafter had a full and fair opportunity to respond to that issue, which was discussed at length in the 2019 order. Indeed, Supreme Court … expressly held that the provisions of that statute applied because “both [plaintiff] and Hyde were within the same employ and acting within the scope of employment at the time the alleged injuries occurred, therefore rendering them co-employees which results in workers’ compensation being the exclusive remedy.” Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde were coemployees was “actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided” against plaintiff … .

Plaintiff’s claim against JFS is premised upon the theory that JFS exercised sufficient control over Hyde to render it vicariously liable for her negligence. The issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde are coemployees has been resolved against plaintiff with preclusive effect, however, and plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the negligence of Hyde is therefore workers’ compensation benefits. As noted above, as Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) “deprive[s] the injured employee of a right to maintain an action against a negligent coemployee, [it also] bars a derivative action which necessarily is dependent upon the same claim of negligence for which the exclusive remedy has been provided” … . Thus, as “plaintiff[] did not assert any allegation that [JFS] had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence,” the cross motion of JFS for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it should have been granted … . Bryant v Gulnick, 2022 NY Slip Op 07284, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In a related proceeding it was determined that both plaintiff bus driver and the driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s bus were county employees. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

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