You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy in this Labor Law 241 (6) action, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined conflicting testimony about whether plaintiff, who was a foreman, had the authority to stop work because of rain, or was instructed to work in the rain, raised a question of fact about the cause of the accident. Plaintiff slipped on wet plywood and fell as he was passing steel rebar to workers below:

The deposition testimony raised issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a slippery condition in violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(d), or whether the sole proximate cause was plaintiff’s decision, as a foreman, to work on a plywood surface exposed to the elements while it was raining … . * * *

… [T]he evidence is inconclusive as to whether plaintiff’s decision to work in the rain, rather than simply following his general foreman’s instructions about what work to perform, was the sole proximate cause of his slip-and-fall accident. … [T]his case is distinguishable from the line of cases relied upon by the dissent that conclude that a plaintiff is not the proximate cause of an accident when there is undisputed evidence that they were following the instructions of a foreman. Here, plaintiff was also a foreman with specific duties and potential control over the work that he and his crew were performing. Whether he could or should have ceased work based on his own authority, as a foreman, his extensive work experience and conditions of the site, there are issues of fact that cannot be resolved on this record. Sutherland v Tutor Perini Bldg. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04228, First Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was a foreman on a construction site. He was working in the rain when he slipped and fell on wet plywood. If plaintiff had the authority to stop work because of the rain, he may be deemed the sole proximate cause of his fall. If plaintiff was ordered to work in the rain, then the slippery plywood may be deemed to be the sole proximate cause of his fall. Because there was conflicting and/or a lack of evidence on these issues, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the defendant made statements during the plea allocution which negated elements of criminal possession of a weapon. At that point, the sentencing judge should have made an inquiry. This issue falls within an exception to the preservation requirement:

Penal Law § 265.03 (3) requires the possession of a “loaded firearm,” meaning “an operable gun with either live ammunition in the gun or held on [the defendant’s] person” with the gun … . … [D]efendant negated that element at sentencing when he stated that the handgun in question was in his bedstand drawer, not on his person, and that it “wasn’t loaded.” At that point, it was incumbent upon County Court to either “conduct a further inquiry or give . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . People v Reese, 2022 NY Slip Op 04194, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements during the plea allocution which negate an element of the charged offense, the judge must make an inquiry or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. The error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

,

HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s judgment by guilty plea and dismissed the superior court information (SCI). A defendant cannot be prosecuted by an SCI after indictment (defendant here had already been indicted). The error is jurisdictional and need not be preserved by objection. The issue is not forfeited by a guilty plea:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[g]iven the objective and the plain language of CPL 195.10 (2) (b), the conclusion is inescapable that waiver cannot be accomplished after indictment . . ., even where it is the defendant who orchestrates the scenario” … .

Here, at the point in time when defendant agreed to be prosecuted by way of an SCI, defendant already had been indicted and the matter was scheduled for trial. Although the indictment subsequently was dismissed, there is no indication in the record that the dismissal was occasioned by a defect in the indictment itself (see CPL 210.20) or that Supreme Court authorized resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]), and it does not appear that a new felony complaint was filed. “Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track” … . Under these circumstances, the waiver of indictment is invalid and the resulting SCI must be dismissed … . People v Michalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04190, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was already indicted when he waived indictment and pled guilty to a superior court information (SCI). That was a jurisdictional error which need not be preserved by objection.

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s promoting-prison-contraband conviction, determined the trial judge, who had initially dismissed the promoting-prison-contraband count, should not have subsequently stayed the dismissal and gone to trial on the promoting-prison-contraband count with the other charges. Apparently the judge stayed the dismissal of the charge because the People had appealed the dismissal. After the trial, the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Then the defendant appealed and argued the judge did not have the statutory authority to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count:

We agree with defendant that County Court improperly stayed its dismissal order. The People had appealed to this Court pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1). In pertinent part, that provision authorizes the People to appeal, as of right, from an order that dismissed an accusatory instrument or a count thereof pursuant to CPL 210.20. Except as provided for in CPL 460.40, the taking of an appeal from a judgment, sentence or order does not automatically stay the execution thereof. With respect to appeals by the People to an intermediate appellate court, an automatic stay results only in the case of an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1-a) “from an order reducing a count or counts of an indictment or dismissing an indictment and directing the filing of a prosecutor’s information” or an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1) “from an order dismissing a count or counts of an indictment charging murder in the first degree” (CPL 460.40 [2]). Plainly, none of those circumstances are present. * * *

… [T]here was no statutory authorization for a stay of County Court’s dismissal order. Without a stay, the bench trial should not have included the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and, thus, there should have been no occasion for defendant to be convicted of the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Accordingly, we vacate that conviction. People v Felli, 2022 NY Slip Op 04192, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: With certain exceptions in CPL 460.40, the dismissal of a count cannot be stayed when the People appeal the dismissal. Here the judge dismissed a count, the People appealed, the judge then stayed the dismissal, held a trial, defendant was convicted of the count, and the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Because the judge had no authority pursuant to CPL 460.40 to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count, the conviction was vacated.

 

,

WHEN HER CHILDREN WERE ASLEEP, MOTHER WENT INTO THE BATHROOM, DRANK BRANDY, AND FELL ASLEEP; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A THREAT OF IMMINENT HARM TO THE CHILDREN OR THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFERED ANY EMOTIONAL HARM; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a dissent, determined the neglect finding against mother was not supported by evidence of a threat of imminent harm to the children. While the children were sleeping, mother went into the bathroom, drank brandy and fell asleep:

… [W]e find that petitioner failed to establish that respondent’s ill-advised conduct placed the children at risk of anything beyond, “at most, possible harm” … . To this point, respondent testified that her youngest children were in age-appropriate sleeping arrangements that presented no inherent danger resulting from respondent’s inebriated state … . Further, although there was a period when the children were no longer supervised by respondent when she was taken to the hospital, the testimony reveals that shelter staff were watching the children until petitioner’s supervisor arrived and took custody of them, and there is no indication that they were in any danger during this period of time … .

… [T]he record is devoid of any proof that the children were upset or suffered any emotional harm at any point during the incident … . Matter of Hakeem S. (Sarah U.), 2022 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Children are not neglected unless there is a threat of imminent harm or actual harm. Here mother went into the bathroom, drank brandy and fell asleep while her children were asleep. The neglect finding was reversed.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUIRING A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING; THE APPELLATE COURT ORDERED A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING, INCLUDING A LINCOLN HEARING, AND ORDERED THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE THE PRESENT ATTORNEY HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father had demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to support a modification of the custody arrangement. The original custody order provided that the 50/50 custody sharing would change to mother’s having primary custody when the child started school. Father explained that mother’s primary custody was necessary because his work prevented him from taking the child to and from school. However, father had since changed jobs and moved to the school district where the child attended to school. The Third Department ordered a “best interests of the child” hearing, including a Lincoln hearing, and ordered the appointment of a different attorney for the child because the present attorney had expressed an opinion about the appropriate custody arrangement:

“A party seeking to modify a prior order of custody must show that there has been a change in circumstances since the prior order and, then, if such a change occurred, that the best interests of the child would be served by a modification of that order” … . According to the father’s petition, the sole reason for the parties’ initial agreement to decrease the father’s parenting time during the school year was because, at the time of the agreement, the father’s work schedule prevented him from transporting the child to and from school. According to the father’s hearing testimony, that circumstance had since changed. The father testified that, while the 50/50 custody arrangement was still in effect, he obtained a new job with a higher salary and more flexible hours, and bought a house in what was at that time the child’s school district, such that the school transportation issue had been alleviated. Matter of Thomas SS. v Alicia TT., 2022 NY Slip Op 04213, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case is an example of evidence which is deemed sufficient to support a modification of custody such that a “best interests of the child” hearing should be held. Here, as part of the “best interests” fact-finding, the Third Department ordered that a Lincoln hearing be held and that a different attorney for the child be appointed because the present attorney had expressed an opinion on custody.

 

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO DISPENSE MEDICAL MARIHUANA RENDERED ITS DETERMINATION ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Commissioner of Health, determined the Commissioner’s failure to consider petitioner’s strong financial condition in connection with petitioner’s application to dispense medical marihuana products pursuant to the Public Health Law rendered the Commissioner’s determination arbitrary and capricious:

We agree with petitioner that the scoring methodology used by DOH [Department of Health] to assess the financial standing portion of petitioner’s application was arbitrary and capricious. “An [agency’s] action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” … . * * *

To the extent that DOH failed to undertake the required financial review, its determination regarding the financial standing portion of petitioner’s application is arbitrary and capricious and must be annulled … . Matter of Hudson Health Extracts, LLC v Zucker, 2022 NY Slip Op 04207, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the Public Health Law required an assessment of the financial condition of each applicant for a license to dispense medical marihuana. The failure to consider the petitioner’s financial condition, which was stronger than that of other applicants, rendered the Department of Health’s determination of petitioner’s eligibility arbitrary and capricious.

 

PETITIONER LIVED IN NEW JERSEY AND COMMUTED TO NEW YORK CITY FOR WORK; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS OWNED A VACATION HOME IN NORTHFIELD, NEW YORK, AND SPENT THREE WEEKS A YEAR THERE, THE NORTHFIELD HOME DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT PLACE OF ABODE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX LAW; THEREFORE THE TAX TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED PETITIONERS OWED NEW YORK STATE INCOME TAX (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Tax Appeals Tribunal, determined petitioners’ vacation home in Northfield, New York, was not a “permanent place of abode” such that petitioner’s were obligated to pay New York State income tax. Petitioners lived in New Jersey and petitioner Nelson Obus commuted to New York City for work. Apparently the commuting was the basis for finding petitioners spent more than 183 days in New York in the relevant tax years. But petitioner did not commute to work from the vacation house and spent no more than three weeks a year there:

… [T]here are objective facts that tend to support the determination of the Tribunal, including that petitioners had “free and continuous access” to the Northville home … . That said, petitioners fall outside of the purview of the target class of taxpayers who were intended to qualify as statutory residents … . It is not disputed that, at most, petitioners utilized the Northville home for three weeks during each tax year for either skiing or to visit the racetrack in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County.,,, The Northville home was not used for access to Obus’ job in New York City and was not suitable for such purposes, given that it is over a four-hour drive each way … . In fact, a year-round tenant occupies an attached apartment, who Obus informs of his presence prior to his arrival. Moreover, petitioners do not keep personal effects in the Northville home, instead bringing with them what they will need for their visits. Based on these undisputed facts, petitioners have not utilized the dwelling in a manner which demonstrates that they had a residential interest in the property … . Thus, even though the Northville home could have been used in a manner such that it could constitute a permanent place of abode within the meaning of Tax Law § 605, because petitioners did not use it in this manner, it does not constitute a permanent place of abode … , and a contrary finding by the Tribunal is inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying the statute … . Matter of Obus v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2022 NY Slip Op 04206, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioners apparently spent more than 183 days a year in New York, presumably because one of the petitioners commuted from their New Jersey home to work in New York City. But petitioners did not spend more than three weeks per year in their vacation home in Northfield, New York. Therefore, the Northfield vacation home should have been found to be petitioners’ “permanent place of abode” for the purpose of requiring petitioners to pay New York State income tax.

 

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