You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE TO THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW ADDRESSING THE NEW PROCESS OF CANVASSING ABSENTEE BALLOTS WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the challenge to the new process of canvassing absentee ballots was precluded by the doctrine of laches:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding/action challenging the constitutionality of the new process of canvassing absentee ballots in Election Law § 9-209 nine months after it was enacted, after the process was in effect for two primary elections and several special elections, and at the time that canvassing of absentee ballots using the new process began in the 2022 general election. The amendment to Election Law § 8-400 was enacted in 2020 and has been in effect for multiple general, primary and special elections but petitioners did not challenge the statute until nine months after the sunset clause was extended and after the mailing of absentee ballots had already begun. … In short, petitioners delayed too long in bringing this proceeding/action. To the extent that petitioners contend that they did not bring the challenges until they were ripe, the action constitutes facial challenges to the statutes, implicating their text, not their applications, and, therefore, the action was ripe at the time of the enactment of the statutes … . Matter of Amedure v State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 06096, Third Dept 11-1-22

Practice Point: The petitioners didn’t bring this challenge to new provisions in the Election Law addressing the canvassing of absentee ballots until nine months after enactment and after the new process had been used several elections. The petition was precluded by the doctrine of laches.

 

,

THE RECEIVER APPOINTED TO CONTROL PROPERTY INVOLVED IN AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OWNER IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT). ​

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receiver, appointed to take control of two properties the ownership of which is in dispute, should have been substituted as the representative owner of the property in a slip and fall case:

Generally, a temporary receiver appointed pursuant to CPLR article 64 “is a person appointed by the court to take control of designated property and see to its care and preservation during litigation” … . Pertinent here, the appointment order authorized the receiver “to immediately take charge and enter possession of the properties,” and empowered the receiver to “act as manager and landlord of the properties.” Correspondingly, the receiver was “authorized and obligated to keep the properties insured against loss by damage of fire . . . and to procure such . . . other insurance as may be reasonably necessary.” Given these directives, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the receiver was accorded only a limited role that did not include property maintenance. To the contrary, the receiver was charged with both the authority and responsibility to assume control over the properties. Pursuant to CPLR 1017, “[i]f a receiver is appointed for a party . . . the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.” That is the situation here. By the court’s directive, responsibility over the management of the properties was passed from the disputing owners to the receiver … . As such, the receiver should have been substituted as the representative owner of the … property … . Wen Mei Lu v Wen Ying Gamba, 2022 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here a receiver was appointed to control properties involved in an ownership dispute. The receiver should have been substituted as a representative owner in a slip and fall case.

 

,

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT CHARGE DEFENDANT WITH CREATING AND FAILING TO REGISTER AN INTERNET IDENTIFIER, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW; INSTEAD, THE SCI CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH FAILURE TO REGISTER A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CORRECTION LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the superior court information (SCI) determined that the SCI did not charge defendant with an violation of Correction Law section 168-a (18). The statute requires a sex offender to register the creation of an “Internet identifier.” But the SCI charged defendant with creating a Facebook account, which is not prohibited:

… [T]he SCI did not charge defendant with failing to register or report a change in an Internet identifier; instead, defendant was solely charged with failing to report a change in Internet status in violation of Correction Law § 168-f (4). Even assuming, without deciding, that the generalized language employed — failing to report a change in Internet status — coupled with the statutory reference otherwise would be sufficient to allege the material elements of the crime charged … , such reference was effectively negated “by the inclusion of conduct that [did] not constitute the crime charged” … — namely, “establishing a Facebook account.”

The governing statutes were written, and have been interpreted, narrowly. It has been clearly established “that the existence of a Facebook account — as opposed to the Internet identifiers a sex offender may use to access Facebook or interact with other users on Facebook — need not be disclosed to DCJS [Division of Criminal Justice Services] pursuant to Correction Law § 168-f (4)” … . Hence, the mere fact that defendant established a Facebook account was not an occurrence that defendant was required to report to DCJS, and his failure to do so did not constitute a violation of Correction Law § 168-f (4) … . * * *

… [T]he People did not charge defendant with failing to register an Internet identifier; they charged him with failing to report a change in Internet status, i.e., “establishing a Facebook account.” Stated differently, instead of “correctly alleg[ing] that the omission constituting the offense was [defendant’s] failure to register an Internet identifier used by him to access and identify himself on the Facebook account that he created and maintained, [the SCI] improperly premise[d] the charge on his failure to register the Facebook account itself” … . People v Ferretti, 2022 NY Slip Op 06030, Third Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here the superior court information (SCI) did not charge defendant with an offense. If the SCI had charged defendant with failing to register an Internet identifier, the SCI would have charged an offense. Bu the SCI only charged defendant with failing to register a Facebook account, which is not an offense.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE INDICATED VISITATION WITH FATHER WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; FATHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence indicated visitation with father would not be in the best interests of the child and his petition for visitation should not have been granted:

… [I]t is undisputed that the father has not lived with the child in over a decade and has only infrequently visited the child due to, among other things, his moving out of the area and frequently relocating around the United States. The father also made no effort to seek a formal award of visitation until 2019, more than seven years after the issuance of the 2012 custody order and over two years after he had last seen the child. This failure by the father to seek a visitation order or otherwise “avail himself . . . of opportunities for visitation over a lengthy period of time is appropriately taken into account in considering whether visitation is appropriate” … .

… [T]he mother testified as to how the father behaved in an irresponsible and harmful manner on the occasions when he did interact with the child and, although the father disputed those claims, we defer to Family Court’s assessment that the father’s testimony was not credible … . * * * [T]he attorney for the child confirmed to Family Court, and now advises us, that the teenage child is upset by interactions with the father for a variety of reasons and does not wish to see him. The child’s preference to have no in-person contact with the father is not dispositive, but is entitled to “considerable weight” given the child’s age … . Matter of Ajmal I. v LaToya J., 2022 NY Slip Op 05912, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Although visitation with a parent is generally considered to be in the child’s best interests, here father’s years-long lack of contact with the child, misbehavior during prior contact, and the child’s opposition to visitation, demonstrated visitation with father was not in the child’s best interests. The petition for visitation should not have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF-SELLER MAY HAVE THOUGHT THE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY SHE SOLD WAS SMALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS, DEFENDANT-BUYER WAS NEVER UNDER THAT IMPRESSION; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE DEAL SHOULD BE RESCINDED BASED ON MUTUAL MISTAKE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, determined the plaintiff-seller of real property did not demonstrate the sale should be rescinded based upon mutual mistake. Plaintiff alleged she intended to transfer 20 acres but the deed described a 39-acre parcel. The parcel, however, was described in feet, not acres, and defendant was never under the impression the parcel was 20 acres in size. There was no “mutual mistake:”

… [E]ven if plaintiff misunderstood the size of the parcel she ultimately conveyed in the corrected deed, she was bound by the contents of a deed she executed absent fraud or other wrongdoing by defendant that she does not suggest occurred, and any unilateral mistake on her part as to the acreage being conveyed by it “resulted from [her] negligence in failing to take the means readily accessible of checking” its property description … . Williams v Sowle, 2022 NY Slip Op 05914, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-seller may have thought the parcel of land she sold to defendant was smaller than it actually was. But defendant was never under that impression. Therefore the sale could not be rescinded based upon “mutual mistake.”

 

,

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAL HIS 2006 CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT FROM RAISING THAT ISSUE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2006 CONVICTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a persistent violent felony offender, determined the fact that defendant didn’t appeal his 2006 conviction on the ground he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision did not prevent him from raising that issue to challenge use of the 2006 conviction in a persistent-felony-offender proceeding:

Defendant … challenged the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction, alleging that he was not informed during the plea allocution that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision … . The record reflects that Supreme Court and the People were under the impression that, because defendant had not raised that objection at his 2006 sentencing and had never appealed the 2006 judgment of conviction, such conviction remained unchallenged as of the hearing date and that, as a consequence, defendant’s sole recourse was to bring a motion under CPL article 440 seeking to vacate that conviction. Defendant was advised that, if the CPL article 440 motion was successful, he could then petition Supreme Court regarding his status as a persistent violent felony offender. The court then adjudicated defendant a persistent violent felony offender.

Significantly, “[n]otwithstanding his failure to appeal from the [2006] conviction, defendant had an independent statutory right to challenge its use as a predicate conviction on the ground it was unconstitutionally obtained” … . Under these circumstances, defendant was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of his 2006 conviction at the hearing. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for a proper persistent felony offender hearing under CPL 400.16 and resentencing. People v Hoyt, 2022 NY Slip Op 05894, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: The fact that defendant did not appeal his 2006 conviction on the ground he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision did not prevent defendant from challenging the use of the 2006 conviction in a persistent violent felony offender proceeding on that same ground.

 

,

THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EXPERT EVIDENCE, OF DEFENDANT’S INTOXICATION TO RAISE A DOUBT WHETHER DEFENDANT FORMULATED THE INTENT TO COMMIT ASSAULT SECOND; THE REQUEST FOR THE INTOXICATION JURY CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s intoxication to warrant the jury charge on intoxication. There was enough evidence of intoxication to support a doubt whether defendant was able to formulate the requisite intent to commit assault second:

“To warrant the submission of an intoxication charge to a jury, there must be sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … . When making the determination as to whether an intoxication charge is warranted, the evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the defendant” … . “[A]lthough a relatively low threshold exists to demonstrate entitlement to an intoxication charge” … , “[e]vidence of intoxication, even under this standard, requires more than a bare assertion by a defendant that he [or she] was intoxicated” … . * * *

Here, in proving assault in the second degree, the People had the burden of establishing that defendant possessed the intent to “cause serious physical injury to another person” … . Although there was testimony that defendant was loud and obnoxious and was arguing with the bartender about the benefit poster just prior to the altercation, there was no testimony regarding interactions between the victim and defendant just prior to the altercation, which could have left a question in the jurors’ minds as to defendant’s intent and how things escalated as quickly as they did … . The testimony at trial regarding defendant entering the bar with a beer, consuming two more drinks prior to being refused service, coupled with the surveillance footage, established that the suspect consumed multiple alcoholic beverages within a short period of time prior to the assault … . Moreover … the surveillance footage revealed that someone looking strikingly similar to defendant consumed several alcoholic beverages hours before the assault and that, upon returning to the bar, exhibited markedly different behavior from earlier in the evening. Additionally, … the People’s expert witness testified that consumption of alcohol in excess can alter one’s personality, which supported his theory of voluntary intoxication. People v Adrian, 2022 NY Slip Op 05896, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here there was sufficient evidence, including expert evidence, of defendant’s intoxication to raise a doubt about whether defendant formulated the intent to commit assault second. Defendant’s request for the intoxication jury charge should have been granted.

 

,

WHETHER A PRIVATE COLLEGE ACTED IRRATIONALLY OR ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY IN ELIMINATING FACULTY POSITIONS IN RESPONSE TO A BUDGET SHORTFALL IS PROPERLY DETERMINED IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE COLLEGE FOLLOWED THE RELEVANT RULES IN THE COLLEGE MANUAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED THE COLLEGE ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent private college followed the relevant provisions of the college manual in determining what programs and faculty positions to eliminate in response to a budget shortfall. Petitioners, members of the music department faculty whose positions were eliminated, did not demonstrate the respondents’ decisions were irrational or arbitrary and capricious:

A private college, “having accepted a charter and having thus become a quasi-governmental body, can be compelled in a[ CPLR] article 78 proceeding to fulfill not only obligations imposed upon them by State or municipal statutes but also those imposed by their internal rules” …  Thus, a CPLR article 78 proceeding is the appropriate vehicle for judicial review of matters involving a determination of a professor’s benefits and privileges of his or her academic tenure … .

As “the administrative decisions of educational institutions involve the exercise of highly specialized professional judgment and these institutions are, for the most part, better suited to make relatively final decisions concerning wholly internal matters” … . Deference should be accorded to a college’s determination, “and judicial review is circumscribed to whether the [college] failed to substantially comply with its internal rules and whether its decision was arbitrary [and] capricious or made in bad faith … . ….

… [T]he record confirms … there were no procedural rule violations. …

… [T]he record confirms that Supreme Court did not give appropriate deference to respondents’ interpretation of the termination preference — as set forth in chapter 2, § E (1) (1.6) of the manual …  — and that Supreme Court improperly concluded that respondents’ determination was arbitrary and capricious.  Matter of Hansbrough v College of St. Rose, 2022 NY Slip Op 05915, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: A court’s Article 78 review of a private college’s elimination of faculty positions in response to a budget shortfall is limited to a determination whether the college acted irrationally or arbitrarily and capriciously. Here the record indicated the college followed the relevant rules in the college manual, i.e.,  the college acted rationally.

 

,

DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the Tax Law did not permit petitioner to deduct royalty payments made by affiliates organized under the law of foreign countries pursuant to intellectual-property licensing agreements. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to be fairly summarized here: Essentially, the petitioner was deemed to be taking advantage of a “loophole” to avoid paying franchise taxes which had been addressed and closed by the Tax Law:

At the hearing, the Department’s employees testified that petitioner was denied the royalty deduction because the foreign affiliates it had received payments from were not New York taxpayers. The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] found that “[t]he addback and exclusion provisions contained in Tax Law [§ 208 former] (9) (o) work in tandem to ensure that royalty transactions between related members are taxed only once” and do “not escape taxation altogether.” In determining that petitioner’s interpretation of the statute effectively allowed it to avoid taxation on that income, which went against the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statute, the ALJ concluded that the Department’s interpretation of the statute was rational and therefore petitioner was not permitted to deduct royalty payments from its income. When the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the ALJ, it added that “the [L]egislature did not intend for a taxpayer to gain the benefit of the income exclusion . . . without the corresponding cost to a related member of the add back.”  Matter of Walt Disney Co. & Consol. Subsidiaries v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 05898, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Disney was deducting royalty payments made by affiliates which did not pay New York taxes. The Third Department determined the Tax Law did not allow the deductions.

 

,

DESPITE THE DRIVER’S FAILURE TO USE A TURN SIGNAL AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE STOP WAS ACTUALLY BASED UPON RACIAL PROFILING; IN THE FIRST DEPARTMENT THE “TURN SIGNAL” GROUND FOR THE STOP WOULD BE ENOUGH, EVEN IF THE STOP WAS ACTUALLY MOTIVATED BY DISCRIMINATION; NOT SO IN THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, disagreeing with the First Department, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground the traffic stop was motivated by racial profiling. The traffic stop was justified by the driver’s failure to use a turn signal. In the First Department, that is good enough, even if racial profiling was the real reason for the stop. Not so in the Third Department:

… [Defendant] asserted a violation of his constitutional rights … based on the allegedly discriminatory police stop. Defendant, who is black, supported this claim with sworn affidavits from himself and the vehicle’s driver. The driver — a white woman — averred in her affidavit that, during the police encounter, the investigator who initiated the stop chided her, saying “you stupid little white b****, you think this black guy cares about you, but he’s just using you to run drugs.” .* * *

… [W]e are mindful that both the majority and dissent in Robinson rejected as unworkable the “primary motivation” subjective test for a traffic stop (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d at 353; id. at 371 …). We abide by that conclusion. Whether a traffic stop was premised on racial profiling must be assessed objectively with reference to the facts and circumstances of the encounter. Such considerations may include, for example, whether the arresting officers were involved in a plausible investigation prior to executing the vehicle stop. Also important — and certainly most relevant here — is consideration of the officers’ actions and comments during the encounter. …

Defendant [submitted] the sworn affidavit of the driver of the vehicle, who … recounted a highly concerning racist statement ostensibly made by the investigator conducting the stop. … [T]he People neither controverted the driver’s statement nor included an affidavit from the investigator doing so … . Having demonstrated his right to a hearing (see CPL 440.30 [5]), defendant bears the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence … . In resolving the motion, the court should undertake an objective analysis of the facts and circumstances of the entire police encounter. People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 05892, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: In the Third Department, even if there exists a valid reason for a vehicle stop, here the failure to use a turn signal, the stop may still be deemed invalid if it was motivated by racial profiling. In the First Department, the turn-signal violation would be enough, even if the actual motivation was discriminatory.

 

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