You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S (DOE’S) DENIALS OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE CITY’S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS (SHS’S) WERE NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the NYC Department of Education’s (DOE’s) denials of petitioners’ applications for admission to NYC’s Specialized High Schools (SHS’s) were not arbitrary and capricious. The opinion includes a detailed history of the SHS’s and detailed explanations of the criteria for admission of students deemed to be disadvantaged within meaning of the SHS’s Discovery program. The petitioners were not disadvantaged students. It is difficult to discern the precise nature of the petitioners’ claims from the opinion, but it appears petitioners were questioning the propriety of the implementation of the Discovery program for disadvantaged students. Matter of C.K. v Tahoe, 2022 NY Slip Op 05899, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: In this Article 78 proceeding the petitioners were students who were denied admission to NYC’s Specialized High Schools (SHS’s), The petitioners, who were not disadvantaged within the meaning the SHS’s Discovery program, apparently questioned the propriety of the implementation of the Discovery program for disadvantaged students. The Third Department held that the Department of Education’s denials of the petitioners’ applications for admission were not arbitrary and capricious.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, revering Family Court, determined the evidence did not demonstrate a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of the custody arrangement:

The father’s primary contention was that the change in his work schedule constituted a sufficient change in circumstances. In that regard, at the time that the 2016 order was entered, the father was working weekday night shifts. When the father filed the instant petition, his work schedule was such that he was working a continuous four-day-on, four-day-off schedule. However, in the midst of the hearing, the father revealed that his work schedule had again changed, this time to Monday through Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., which aligned much more closely with his schedule as of the 2016 order. In our view, this does not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to trigger a best interests analysis. As for the other factors relied upon by Family Court, there was no showing that the mother’s new job, the parties’ new residences, their new relationships, or the introduction of half-siblings and a stepsibling into the child’s life “constitute[d] changed circumstances evidencing any infirmity in the present custody arrangement” … . Accordingly, the father failed to meet his burden of establishing the necessary change in circumstances, and the petition should have been dismissed. Matter of Kenneth N. v Elizabeth O., 2022 NY Slip Op 05904, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence relied on by Family Court did not amount to a change in circumstances warranting a modification of custody. The evidence included: mother’s new job, the parties’ new residences, the parties’ new relationships, and more children.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E., A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER, WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT AND AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, found there had been a change in circumstances, i.e., a breakdown in communication between mother and father,  justifying awarding sole custody to mother. The evidence did not support the finding that communication had broken down:

… Family Court erred in determining that the parties being unwilling or unable to cooperatively raise the child constituted a change in circumstances and sua sponte modifying the prior order. … Initially, the parties did provide some evidence as to how each has failed to properly communicate with respect to the child, such as the father being unresponsive to the mother’s messages regarding child support payments and the mother failing to inform him that she had unenrolled the child from daycare. However, the mother acknowledged that the father has been able to communicate with her via the TalkingParents app to discuss issues regarding the child, such as custodial exchange dates. The father similarly stated that he has been able to communicate with the mother via email. Thus, although their communication is strained at times, partially as a result of these proceedings, the record does not establish that it has completely broken down … . Indeed, “[t]he record establishes that the parties’ relationship was no more antagonistic during [the relevant time] period than it was at the time of the entry of the original order” … , which, in this case, was only two months prior to the filing of the father’s petition. Accordingly, Family Court should not have proceeded to a best interest analysis and, instead, should have continued the joint legal custody arrangement reflected in the prior order … .Matter of Karl II. v Maurica JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 05905, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence did not support the Family Court judge’s sua sponte finding that communication between mother and father had broken down warranting a modification of the custody arrangement.

 

, , ,

THE PLEADINGS ALLEGED THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE HOSPITAL’S “AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES” AND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT POINTED TO THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the emergency room doctor, Vaugeois, who treated plaintiff’s decedent. Although the complaint did not name Vaugeois as a defendant, the pleadings alleged the negligence of defendant’s agents and employees:

… [Plaintiff’s expert] points to Vaugeois, the hospitalist who admitted and initially rendered care to decedent, as the negligent party. … [P]laintiff’s bill of particulars speaks to defendant’s “agents and employees, specifically including” Smithem and Dey [who had been dropped from the suit]. The word “including” is not exclusive, leaving open the prospect that vicarious liability was premised on the negligence of other providers. “A hospital is responsible for the malpractice of . . . a professional whom it holds out as performing the services it offers, even though in fact he or she is an independent contractor” … . At the very least, a question of fact is presented as to whether liability may be imposed against the hospital based on an apparent authority theory … . “Pursuant to that theory, under the emergency room doctrine, ‘a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the acts of an independent physician if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician'” … . Fasce v Catskill Regional Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 05906, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: The pleadings alleged negligence on the part of defendant hospital’s “agents and employees.” Plaintiff’s expert alleged the emergency room physician was negligent. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the hospital would be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the emergency room physician.

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CURE THE OMISSION OF THE “PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE” REQUIREMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT ANY PROOF ON THE ISSUE; THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE PROOF SUBMITTED WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to cure a pleading omission in this slip and fall case. The complaint did not allege the defendant city had written notice of the sidewalk condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall. The amendment sought to cure the omission. The Third Department explained that plaintiff did not need to present any proof at this pre-discovery stage. As long as the amendment is not palpably devoid of merit and does not prejudice the defendant  it should have been allowed. Therefore Supreme Court should not have considered plaintiff’s “written notice” proof and denied the amendment on the ground the proof did not demonstrate the defendant city had written notice of the condition:

As it is undisputed that plaintiff timely filed a notice of claim concerning her fall and the City and plaintiff thereafter participated in a 50-h hearing (see General Municipal Law§ 50-h), the City cannot allege prejudice or surprise. Moreover, as demonstrated by her proposed amended complaint, plaintiff is not changing her theory of causation, but merely curing her pleading omission. Although Supreme Court correctly determined that the proposed amended complaint cured the pleading omission, its attendant conclusion that “[plaintiff’s] claim is belied by the documentary evidence” and subsequent dismissal of the action on that basis was error.

At this stage of the litigation, where discovery has not yet even commenced, plaintiff has no burden to submit any proof. As such, the documents that she did submit are of no moment, and do not provide a basis upon which to dismiss her action … .. … [C]ontrary to the City’s assertion that the proposed amended complaint contains bare legal conclusions, plaintiff need not establish the merits of the proposed amendments … . Inasmuch as the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient or patently meritless, and the City cannot allege surprise or prejudice as the proposed amended complaint otherwise contains facts formerly pleaded and previously known to it, leave should have been granted to amend the complaint … . Mohammed v New York State Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05909, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend the slip and fall complaint by curing the omission of the “written notice” allegation should have been granted. Plaintiff did not need to present proof that the city actually had written notice. The only issues before the court were whether the amendment was palpably devoid of merit or the amendment would prejudice the city. Therefore Supreme Court erred by considering the “written notice” evidence presented by the plaintiff and denying the amendment because that evidence did not prove the city had written notice of the sidewalk condition.

 

PETITIONER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WAS INJURED WHEN A HEAVY SELF-CLOSING DOOR CLOSED ON HER AS SHE LEFT THE HEARING ROOM; THE INCIDENT WAS AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW ENTITLING PETITIONER TO DISABILTIY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the finding that petitioner was not injured in an “accident,” determined petitioner was entitled to disability benefits. Petitioner, an administrative law judge, was injured leaving a hearing room when a heavy door closed on her:

… [P]etitioner bears the burden of establishing that the disability was the result of an accident, which is defined as “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” … . “Under this standard, petitioner was required to demonstrate that [her] injuries were caused by a precipitating event that was sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent in [her] ordinary job duties” … . …

Although petitioner was aware of the hazard posed by the heavy, self-closing door, she reasonably expected that the supervisor, who was holding the door open, would continue to do so as petitioner walked through. Thus, petitioner demonstrated that her injuries were caused by a “sudden [and] unexpected” precipitating event — the supervisor letting go of the heavy, self-closing door while petitioner walked through it — which was not a risk inherent in her job duties …. Matter of Campbell v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 05911, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here a heavy self-closing door closed on the petitioner, an administrative law judge, as she left the hearing room. The incident was “sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent in her ordinary job duties.” Therefore the incident was an “accident” under the Retirement and Social Security Law, entitling petitioner to disability benefits.

 

THE RECORD OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS DID NOT EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY THE SHACKLING OF DEFENDANT’S HANDS DURING HIS TESTIMONY; EVEN IF HIS HANDS WERE UNDER THE TABLE, THE INABILITY TO USE HIS HANDS DURING HIS TESTIMONY WAS PREJUDICIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the record did not explain or otherwise support the shackling of defendant’s hands when he testified before the grand jury:

An actual justification for the use of physical restraints, specific to the defendant, is … necessary when a defendant testifies before a grand jury; in such context, the People are required to articulate a reasonable basis on the record for their use … . That threshold showing must be made on the record at the commencement of the proceeding, outside the presence of the grand jury…. .

… Review of the confidential grand jury minutes reveals that there was no relevant information offered to support the use of restraints. Shackling incarcerated defendants before the factfinder without revealing an adequate basis for doing so cannot be countenanced. …  Although the People assert that the hand shackles were hidden by the table at which defendant sat, this is disputed and was similarly unaddressed upon the record of proceedings.  It bears noting that it is customary for many people to use hand gestures in the course of describing events; for this reason, the inability to show one’s hands may connote or communicate that one is not trustworthy. Put another way, hiding one’s hands may be interpreted as withholding, may communicate in body language that one has “something to hide.” … .

… [T]here were no cautionary instructions addressing the shackles … , and the evidence presented was not so overwhelming as to eliminate the potential for prejudice … . People v Cain, 2022 NY Slip Op 05239, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: The record of grand jury proceedings must explain and justify the shackling of defendant’s hands during his testimony. Here the record did not address the shackling. Defendant’s conviction was reversed.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that, although defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment proceeding, he did not waive his right to effective assistance of counsel. Counsel did not communicate with the defendant and did not present a defense at the hearing:

“SORA defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Due Process Clauses contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 6 of the NY Constitution, because the statutory right to counsel in such proceedings … would otherwise be rendered meaningless, and because SORA determinations affect a defendant’s liberty interest” … . Moreover, “[a] fundamental aspect of the attorney-client relationship is communication” and “we have noted that an attorney’s responsibility in the representation of any client requires consulting with and counseling the client” … . Defendant waived his right to be present at the hearing but did not waive his right to challenge the Board’s risk assessment and the People’s proof … . During the hearing, counsel admitted that he lacked “the benefit of [defendant’s] input” in proceeding with the matter and County Court acknowledged that counsel was at a “disadvantage” because he had not had a chance to speak with defendant. The record further reflects that counsel failed to present a defense or raise any objections and did not require the People to present any proof at the hearing. People v Moore, 2022 NY Slip Op 05242, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: Even where a defendant waives his right to appear at a SORA risk-assessment proceeding, he is entitled to effective assistance of counsel. Counsel, to be effective, must communicate with the defendant and present a defense.

 

, , , ,

A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined petitioner-tenant was entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees in petitioner’s action against the city for ordering petitioner to vacate her apartment without first affording a hearing. The order to vacate was made after the code enforcement officer found windows in the apartment which could not be opened and an electrical problem. Before the appeal was heard, the city amended to code to provide an administrative hearing to those ordered to vacate their apartments. Petitioner was deemed to be a prevailing party and was therefore entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees:

Petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a second-floor apartment in the City of Schenectady … . … [P]etitioner contacted respondent City of Schenectady Code Enforcement Office and reported problems with the apartment including, among other things, that only three of the windows in the apartment could be opened. Following this complaint, the owner hired a repairperson to fix the windows … . … [A] code enforcement officer conducted an inspection of said premises. Upon finding that several of the second-floor windows still could not be opened and there was an electrical violation, the code enforcement officer issued an order to “immediately vacate” the second floor of the premises due to “sealed emergency rescue openings” and “unsafe conditions.” The order to vacate listed multiple violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State (19 NYCRR part 1226 [hereinafter PMCNYS]) and violations of the Code of the City of Schenectady. * * *

… [R]espondents argue that Supreme Court erred in awarding petitioner counsel fees because this matter is not a civil action against the state within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a) and, nonetheless, respondents were substantially justified in their acts. We disagree. “CPLR 8601 (a) mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … .

… [G]iven [the] statutory and regulatory framework, we are satisfied that respondents’ code enforcement officer acted as a state agent in issuing the order in the course of his enforcement of the PMCNYS…. .

… [P]etitioners were expressly entitled to a post-deprivation administrative hearing pursuant to Property Maintenance Code of New York State § 103.2.1. That provision contemplates a prompt forum for a dispossessed occupant to address his or her concerns with the involved municipal officials. … [R]espondents’ disregard of petitioner’s repeated requests for such a hearing effectively deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents’ failure to follow up on the code violations only compounded the problem. Matter of Brown v City of Schenectady, 2022 NY Slip Op 05245, Third Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: A tenant ordered to vacate an apartment by a code enforcement officer is entitled to a prompt hearing.

Practice Point: A municipal code enforcement officer is an agent of the state. Therefore, a suit against a municipal code enforcement officer is a suit against the state entitling the prevailing party to costs, disbursements and counsel fees.

 

,

THE VIDEO DID NOT SUPPORT THE CREATING-A-DISTURBANCE CHARGE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found that the video evidence did support the charge:

… [S]ubstantial evidence was lacking to support the charge of creating a disturbance … . As relevant here, an incarcerated individual “shall not engage in conduct which disturbs the order of any part of the facility . . .[, which] includes . . . loud talking in a mess hall, program area or corridor” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]). The misbehavior report stated that petitioner was talking to another incarcerated individual and that, after refusing to produce his identification card to a correction officer, “the other 38 [incarcerated individuals] began to take notice.” However, video of the incident does not reflect that petitioner’s conduct disturbed the order of the commissary bullpen area(see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]), nor did it demonstrate that he was engaging in loud talk or other misconduct indicative of a disruption … . Matter of Ramos v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: Here the video of the incident did not support the charge that petitioner created a disturbance. The misbehavior determination was annulled.

 

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