You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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.

 

, , ,

HYDE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, LOST CONTROL AND CROSSED INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING COUNTY BUS; HYDE WAS FATALLY INJURED AND PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the complaint against Bryant, the driver of the county bus involved in the accident, should have been dismissed. The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, Hyde, lost control of the car and crossed into the path of the oncoming bus. Hyde was fatally injured and plaintiff had no memory of the accident:

Bryant stated in her affidavit and deposition testimony that a mixture of snow and ice was falling in the leadup to the accident and that, although the road was coated in snow, she was still able to see the center line and fog lines. Bryant added that she was travelling two to five miles below the speed limit and was comfortable driving the bus in the weather conditions. As for the accident itself, Bryant stated that Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane about 1½ car lengths in front of the bus and that she had a second to react before striking it, as well as that she had “nowhere to go” to evade Hyde’s vehicle and that she lightly applied her brakes in an effort to slow down without losing control of the bus. Plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, and nothing else in the record, including the police accident report, contradicted Bryant’s version of events. Bryant accordingly established that she reacted reasonably when Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane of traffic, and plaintiff’s speculation that Bryant might have been able to avoid the collision had she been driving even further below the speed limit or taken other evasive action despite having “at most, a few seconds to react,” did not raise a question of fact … . Northacker v County of Ulster, 2022 NY Slip Op 07285, Third dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The only evidence of the accident was that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger crossed into the path of the oncoming county bus and the bus driver had only a second to react. The county’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the bus driver should have been granted.

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PRIOR OWNER OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY GIVING RISE TO A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was entitled to a prescriptive easement with respect to a septic system which encroached on defendant’s property:

Plaintiff represents in her complaint that the septic system was installed “[a]t least as early as the 1920s.” The septic system was ostensibly concealed until 1997, when plaintiff replaced part of the tank. Moreover, a June 2000 letter from defendants’ father, the prior owner of the property, to his attorney indicates that he was aware of a septic tank that had been installed too close to the well on plaintiff’s land … . Although the record is sparse on information concerning plaintiff’s septic tank, the first indication that defendants sought any information from plaintiff concerning permission for the installation of the septic tank came in September 2018. In this respect, there is evidence suggesting a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff can establish that the septic system was installed with defendants’ predecessors’ knowledge and hostile to their interests. Accordingly, we find that defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to whether plaintiff can establish her cause of action for a prescriptive easement in relation to the presence of the septic tank … which will ultimately implicate whether or not the tank constitutes a trespass … . Sasscer v Vesey, 2022 NY Slip Op 07286, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here there was a question of fact whether the prior owner of defendant’s property was aware plaintiff’s installation of a septic system encroached on defendant’s land, giving rise to a prescriptive easement.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING REQUIRED REMITTAL FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s failure to make findings of fact in the visitation proceedings required remittal:

Although the court recited that its determination was based upon the proof adduced at the fact-finding and Lincoln hearings, it did not make factual findings. Furthermore, the record is also not sufficiently developed in order for us to make an independent determination. In this regard, at the fact-finding hearing, the father withdrew his request for in-person visitation with the child and, on appeal, the father requests monthly telephone contact with the child. The mother testified that she opposed additional visitation than what was provided for in the 2013 order because the child showed signs of fear and apprehension, did not have a relationship with the father and was not engaged in writing letters to the father. The mother also testified that the child has a fear associated with prison and violence.

Other than the mother’s conclusory testimony, there was scant evidence, if any, demonstrating that the child having telephone contact with the father would be detrimental to the child’s welfare … . Moreover, even crediting the mother’s testimony about the child’s fear, it is unclear whether such fear relates to in-person visitation with the father at a prison or to telephone calls, as the father now requests. Because the record evidence is not sufficiently developed to determine whether the father should be awarded monthly telephone contact with the child, the matter must be remitted for a new hearing … . Matter of Anthony T. v Melissa U., 2022 NY Slip Op 07287, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In this “expansion of visitation” proceeding, the judge did not make findings of fact and the record was not sufficient for the appellate court to rule, the case was remitted to Family Court for a new hearing.

 

,

​ THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE 40-MINUTE DETENTION, THE CALLING OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE OFFICER, AND THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR BY THE PAROLE OFFICER, WERE VALID; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FURTHER DETENTION AROSE ONLY AFTER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LIMITED DETENTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD DISSIPATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the traffic stop for rolling through a stop sign and the extended 40-minute detention and the search of the vehicle were valid. The dissenters argued that rolling through the stop sign justified only a limited detention. The facts described by the majority are too detailed to fairly summarize. When the officers stopped the car, they were aware of defendant’s legal history and parole status. The defendant was outside the geographical limit of his parole conditions: The defendant’s parole officer was called to the scene and he conducted a search of the car pursuant to parole rules:

Defendant’s multiple and inconsistent explanations about his travels, which the police officers knew were false, coupled with his parole situation and his nervous demeanor throughout the encounter, combined to give the officers a founded suspicion of criminality … . As such, the police officers were authorized to extend the scope of the stop beyond its original justification by requesting consent to search defendant’s vehicle and, upon denial, detaining defendant to await a canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior … . * * *

Given that defendant was placed on lifetime parole in 1999 due to illegal narcotics activity, we conclude that Pirozzolo’s [the parole officer’s] decision to search the vehicle was reasonable and substantially related to the performance of his duties … .

From the dissent:

Defendant did give conflicting answers in response to [officer] Linehan’s inquiry, and County Court found that such answers, coupled with defendant’s nervous demeanor and parole status, gave Linehan founded suspicion that criminality was afoot. These answers and behavior by defendant, however, came after the initial justification for stopping and detaining defendant had already dissipated … . Indeed, between the time when Linehan effectuated the traffic stop and processed defendant’s license and registration, Linehan did not observe anything suspicious by defendant so as to give him founded suspicion that criminality was afoot in order to continue defendant’s detention … . People v Thomas, 2022 NY Slip Op 07263, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here the majority concluded the traffic stop, the 40-minute detention, calling the defendant’s parole officer, and the search of the car by the parole officer, were valid. Two dissenters argued only the limited initial detention related to the traffic stop for rolling through a stop sign was justified.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, WERE DEEMED PROTECTED FROM SUIT BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW; WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined qualified immunity protected plaintiff’s supervisors in this hostile-work-environment action under 42 USC 1983 and the NYS Human Rights Law against the City of Albany and individual city employees. Plaintiff alleged a co-worker named Tierney made sexually inappropriate comments to her over a period of two years. The allegations against Tierney properly survived summary judgment, but the allegations against the defendants who played no role in the harassment, alleging supervisory inaction, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff had worked as a civilian dispatcher in the police department:

In the 42 USC § 1983 context, liability of an individual defendant is based on his or her “personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation” … . Individual defendant liability only attaches when his or her own conduct is sufficiently severe and pervasive to create the hostile work environment; otherwise, that defendant is protected by qualified immunity … . * * *

Under state law, public officials are protected by qualified immunity for discretionary acts that are unlawful under the Human Rights Law unless “they are undertaken in bad faith or without reasonable basis” … . Hostile work environment claims under the Human Rights Law are evaluated under the same severe-or-pervasive standard as a claim brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … .* * *

Although individual liability under 42 USC § 1983 may flow from a supervisor’s inaction in the face of known harassment … , the alleged individual inaction … did not suffice to create the hostile work environment … .

We reach the same conclusion … under the Human Rights Law, pursuant to which supervisors may be held individually liable to the extent that they aided and abetted conduct creating a hostile work environment (see Executive Law § 296 [6]). … [D]efendants[] … did not actively participate in the conduct creating the hostile work environment as required under the aiding-and-abetting provision … .

Even if plaintiff’s Human Rights Law claim against them could proceed under a supervisory inaction theory, we would conclude that they are shielded by qualified immunity. … . Mahoney v City of Albany, 2022 NY Slip Op 07288, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff and defendants were city employees. Plaintiff alleged one employee made sexually inappropriate comments to her over a two year period. Supervisory inaction was the basis for the action against other defendants. The Third Department held the “supervisory-inaction” defendants were protected from suit by qualified immunity as a matter of law under both 42 USC 1983 and the NYS Human Rights Law. There were questions of fact about whether the employee who made the comments was protected by qualified immunity.

 

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