You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, DESPITE THIS BEING DEFENDANT’S FIRST CONTACT WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, HIS ACQUITTAL OF THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES, AND AFFIDAVITS FROM SEVERAL JURORS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s attempted assault conviction and the denial of youthful offender status, over a dissent, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a youthful offender adjudication. The victim was slashed with a knife in the abdomen and arm. It was defendant’s first contact with the criminal justice system. Affidavits from some of the jurors were submitted in support of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict:

… Supreme Court noted that it had received multiple letters in support of defendant which indicated that he was of “upstanding character.” The court agreed with defendant’s assertion that this was his first involvement with the criminal justice system and that he had avoided circumstances like this in the past. The court considered these facts in imposing the sentence, but also that there was no evidence that any other individual had been involved in the physical altercation between defendant and the victim. The court expressly disbelieved defendant’s explanation that he carried the knife at all times because he feared for his safety, in view of the fact that defendant’s presence with the knife was explicitly requested. The court noted that if defendant was truly afraid for his safety the appropriate response would be to call campus police, not show up to the fight with knife in tow. The court also paid importance to defendant’s failure to take accountability or acknowledge that his actions caused the victim’s injury, despite having expressed generalized sympathy for the victim. The court found that, although eligible for youthful offender status, the circumstances of the crime did not warrant granting the request and imposed a five-year term of incarceration. * * *

From the dissent:

… “[Y]outhful offender designations are given to those who have a real likelihood of turning their lives around, and the protection gives these individuals the opportunity for a fresh start, without a criminal record” … . That is precisely what the facts of this case present: an individual who made a grave mistake but appears motivated to redeem himself. In my view, although defendant’s crime is significant, justice is better served by imposing a sentence that is commensurate with the severity of his crime while also permitting him to become a productive member of society upon release, which will occur at a critical time in his transition to adult life … . People v Hall, 2025 NY Slip Op 06366, Third Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the broad discretion accorded a judge in determining whether to adjudicate a defendant a youthful offender.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL REPORT DID NOT ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 137 AND COULD BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE FOR THAT REASON, THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO MAKE A TIMELY OBJECTION TO THE REPORT; THE PRECLUSION OF THE REPORT WAS THEREFORE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the medical report (by Dr, Kountis) finding claimant had a 42.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right wrist should not have been precluded because it did not meet the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law 137. Although the Board has the power to preclude the report for that reason, the employer did not make a timely objection to the report:

Although “[a] report of an examination that does not substantially comply with the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law [§] 137 . . . shall not be admissible as evidence,” a party raising an objection to such a report’s admissibility must “raise [that] objection in a timely manner” … . Claimant filed Kountis’ report in March 2023, after which the employer was notified that it had 75 days to respond in any of several enumerated ways, including by filing a memorandum to refute the sufficiency and credibility of the report. At no time during that 75-day period did the employer challenge Kountis’ report for failing to adhere to the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 137. Further, the employer failed to raise the argument during the subsequent hearing held in September 2023. It is clear that the employer had, and failed to avail itself of, ample opportunity to challenge Kountis’ report prior to the WCLJ’s determination. As a result, the employer’s eventual challenge was untimely, and it was error for the Board to preclude Kountis’ report … . Matter of Troiano v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 06377, Third Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If there are grounds for precluding a medical report for failure to meet the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law 137, the employer must make a timely objection to the report. Here the employer failed to object to the report during the 75-day period allowed for objections and failed to object in a hearing held six or seven months after the report was filed. The Third Department determined, under those facts, it was error to preclude the report.

 

,

CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD USED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, AN SLU NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY PRIOR SLU TO THE SAME PART OF THE BODY; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing and remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board applied the wrong standard for compensation for an injury to a member for which an SLU had been made for a prior injury. The Board used the erroneous standard that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member:”

The Court of Appeals has clarified … that successive and “separate SLU awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 15 and, when a claimant proves that the second injury, ‘considered by itself and not in conjunction with the previous disability,’ has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use” … . Thus, a claimant’s entitlement to an additional SLU award for a successive injury to the same statutory member “turns upon the sufficiency of the medical proof adduced” … . “Such demonstration may include medical evidence that a prior injury and the current injury to the same member are ‘separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use of [the subject member]’ and that the current injury resulted in a greater degree of loss of use of the body member in question ‘beyond that . . . [of] the prior injury’ ” … .

… [T]he standard articulated and then applied by the Board, which relied solely upon Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ. (164 AD3d at 1510), was that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member” (emphasis supplied). The Board is not required to reduce or offset the SLU by the prior SLU where a “claimant demonstrates that a subsequent injury increased the loss of use of a body member beyond that resulting from the prior injury” (Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 38 NY3d at 444). Given that the Board’s decision did not consider, or otherwise ascertain the credibility of, the conflicting medical evidence that was before it — which included documentary and testimonial evidence from claimant’s treating physician — regarding the extent to which claimant’s injuries were “separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use” of his right leg … , the Board’s finding of a 12.5% SLU of the right leg must be reversed and the matter remitted for further consideration by the Board in accordance with the holding in Matter of Johnson [supra]. Matter of Krein v Green Haven Corr. Facility, 2025 NY Slip Op 06238, Third Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: When an SLU has been made for a prior injury, a subsequent SLU for the same part of the body need not be reduced by the amount of the prior SLU. The claimant can submit medical evidence that the injuries are separate pathologies which individually caused a specific amount of loss of use.

 

, ,

A NEW APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE FACILITY SUBMITTED WHILE THE CHALLENGE TO A PRIOR APPLICATION WAS PENDING REQUIRED A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW OR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION WAIVING A NEW REVIEW; MATTER REMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Planning Board, when faced with a new application for approval of construction of a storage facility while a challenge to the prior application was still pending, should have conducted a new site plan review or issued a written determination waiving a new site plan review. The matter was remitted to the Planning Board. In the initial application, the proposed building encroached on a residential zoning district. In the new application, the proposed building was entirely within the commercial zoning district:

… [I]t is evident from the application materials and the Planning Board minutes that the second application was meant to serve as a separate application for the purpose of bypassing the challenge still pending [*4]in Supreme Court on the first application.

The new application required the Planning Board to either conduct the site plan review process anew or issue a written determination waiving same, neither of which it did … . Instead, the Planning Board issued site plan approval with little discussion save for a brief question on the topic of parking and ascertaining the status of the proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the initial plan. Based upon this exceedingly limited discussion of the new plan and the utter failure to set forth a record-based elaboration for its decision to grant site plan approval, we cannot find that the Planning Board “identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took [the requisite] hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination,” as required by SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] … . Therefore, that part of the court’s judgment dismissing the causes of action asserting SEQRA violations must be reversed, and that aspect of the petition seeking to annul the Planning Board’s grant of site plan approval granted. Matter of Bigelow v Town of Willsboro Planning Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 06105, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: A new application to the the Planning Board for approval of construction which is designed to bypass a prior application for which a challenge is pending must either be reviewed anew by the Planning Board or the Board must issue a written determination waiving a new review. Neither was done here and the matter was remitted to the Planning Board.

 

, , ,

RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge, who had declined to issue a temporary “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) for respondent and had set the matter down for a hearing, did not have the authority to, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and dismiss the petition. After respondent had threatened self harm he was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

… [O]ne day prior to the scheduled hearing, Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a decision canceling the hearing and dismissing the petition. As grounds for the dismissal, the court found that dismissal best served the interest of preserving judicial and law enforcement resources given respondent’s inability to purchase a firearm due to the arrest pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, purported hospital admission pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) and the lack of any indication that respondent owned any firearms in New York at the time of the proceeding. …

To begin, as the order on appeal was issued on a sua sponte basis, no appeal lies as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Nevertheless, “we treat the notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal and grant the request” … .

… Supreme Court’s sua sponte order dismissing the petition must be reversed. “[S]ua sponte dismissals are to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant them” … . Here, there is no indication that such extraordinary circumstances exist. The grounds relied upon by Supreme Court — that the relief that would be provided by an ERPO was “duplicative and an inefficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources” — to the extent that they could constitute meritorious grounds for dismissal, require that petitioner be given the opportunity to respond and object … . Moreover, CPLR 6343 (1) clearly mandates that if a temporary ERPO is denied, such as occurred here, the court hold a hearing, no later than 10 business days after the application for the ERPO is served on the respondent, to determine whether an ERPO should be issued. Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal on grounds that are entirely absent from the statute was improper, and we therefore reverse and remit to conduct a hearing as required. Matter of Hogencamp v Matthew KK., 2025 NY Slip Op 06106, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right. Permission to appeal must be requested.​

Practice Point: Here the respondent threatened self harm and was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. A judge’s authority is constrained by the Mental Hygiene Law. Once an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) is denied by the judge and the matter is set down for a hearing, the judge cannot, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and deny the petition for reasons not prescribed in the Mental Hygiene Law.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined plaintiff’s salary, paid to hm as the sole shareholder in a professional service corporation, was not a corporate expense and therefore could be recoverable as damages for lost profits in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff, a radiation oncologist, successfully sued the hospital for breach of contract after the hospital terminated him. The instant dispute is about the available damages. In addition to ruling plaintiff could recover his lost salary from his professional service corporation as damages, the Third Department held defendant could present proof plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding employment, through another professional service corporation, with another hospital. The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings:

Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting causes of action for, among others, breach of contract, wrongful termination, libel and slander. Following the completion of disclosure and motion practice, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on the four remaining causes of action for breach of contract. A jury trial on damages was scheduled, and the parties filed respective motions in limine disputing the method of calculating damages and whether evidence of ]plaintiffs’] duty to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury. Such dispute essentially distills to whether the salary paid by a professional service corporation to its sole shareholder must be treated as an expense in calculating the lost profits, thus subtracting it from the corporation’s profits and correspondingly reducing its damages. Supreme Court, in a pair of well-reasoned decisions, determined that [plaintiff’s] salary as paid by [plaintiff professional service corporation] under the coverage agreement is not an expense and could be recoverable as damages for lost profits. Supreme Court further found that evidence of [plaintiffs’] efforts to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury, and whether or not [plaintiff’s] postbreach earnings are income derived because of defendant’s breach is a question to be resolved by the jury in determining damages. Radiation Oncology Servs. of Cent. N.Y., P.C. v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06112, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Here, in a matter of first impression, the Third Department ruled that plaintiff oncologist, whose salary was paid by plaintiff professional service corporation in which plaintiff oncologist was the sole shareholder, could, in a breach of contract action, recover his lost salary as lost profits. In other words, in this situation, plaintiff’s salary was not considered to be a corporate expense which must be deducted from lost profits when calculating damages for breach of contract.

 

,

ALTHOUGH CONTRACTING COVID-19 IS COMPENSABLE UNDER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE PROOF THAT CLAIMANT CONTRACTED COVID-19 BECAUSE OF WORKPLACE EXPOSURE WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the record did not support the finding that claimant, a school custodian, contracted COVID-19 from workplace exposure. The decision is fact-specific. Claimant had little contact with students during his work hours and there were other possible sources of infection:

We acknowledge that “the contraction of COVID-19 in the workplace is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law” … , that the issue of whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact for the Board to resolve and that the Board’s findings in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed … . Additionally, our case law makes clear that where, as here, the injured claimant alleges that he or she contracted COVID-19 at work, such claimant “bears the burden of demonstrating either a specific exposure to COVID-19 or that COVID-19 was so prevalent in the work environment as to present an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event” … ; “for example, workers with significant contact with the public in communities with high rates of infection or workers in a workplace experiencing high rates of infection” … .

… Although claimant’s job included cleaning various areas of the school and picking up supplies, he acknowledged that his only contact with students would occur while he was mopping the hallways, at which time approximately 20 students would pass by him on their way to the locker rooms. During the relevant time frame, no other member of claimant’s household tested positive for COVID-19, but claimant’s then-spouse worked in-person and did the grocery shopping, her son attended sporting events three days each week and claimant attended church each week with approximately 40 other people. Claimant, who did not wear a mask during church services, testified that his fellow attendees “wouldn’t have been [sitting] that close” to one another. The record is silent as to the rate of infection in either the school where claimant worked or the surrounding community.

Upon reviewing the record as a whole, we cannot say that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. As a starting point, the record is devoid of proof that there was a high rate of infection present in claimant’s work environment at the relevant point in time … . Further, claimant’s brief encounters with a passing group of students in a corridor falls short of the degree of regular, consistent and close interaction with the public at large necessary to sustain a finding of prevalence … . Finally, the record reflects that either claimant or members of his household engaged in other in-person pursuits during the relevant time period. Under these circumstances, the Board’s finding that claimant’s employment exposed him to an elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19 cannot stand. Matter of Angelo (Southwestern Cent. Sch.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05998, Third Dept 10-30-25

Practice Point: Contracting COVID-19 is compensable under Workers’ Compensation but claimant must present proof exposure at the workplace was the source of the infection, not the case here.​

 

, ,

THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES’ (DCJS’S) DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS TERMINATED “FOR CAUSE” WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS; THE DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED AS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, held the Division of Criminal Justice Services’ (DCJS’s) determination that petitioner police officer was terminated “for cause,” in the face of a consent order and evidence demonstrating petitioner resigned, was arbitrary and capricious.  The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:​

In its brief on appeal, DCJS states that it “interprets this regulation as requiring a causal nexus between the allegations of misconduct and the officer’s subsequent separation from service.” Although that is a facially rational interpretation of the regulation, DCJS’ determination that that is what occurred here lacks a sound basis in reason and disregards the facts … . Indeed, during the review process, DCJS had before it a copy of the consent award, which clearly stated that petitioner would be reinstated in good standing upon serving his suspension. Although the Police Chief claimed that petitioner never returned to work after the suspension period was over, petitioner submitted documentary evidence demonstrating the inaccuracy of that representation. Moreover, DCJS knew that the Police Chief had characterized petitioner’s separation from employment as a “standard resignation” … and that the consent award did not contain any provision precluding petitioner from seeking employment with the Schenectady County Sheriff’s Department, thereby raising a question as to the sincerity of the Police Chief’s representation [to that effect], as well as his subsequent “for cause” report. In these circumstances, it should have been clear to DCJS that the misconduct allegations were fully resolved upon petitioner serving his suspension and, therefore, the Police Chief’s subsequent reporting that petitioner resigned “in connection with allegations of misconduct” was materially inaccurate. Matter of Ferretti v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 06000, Third Dept 10-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when an administrative agency’s determination will be found “arbitrary and capricious.” Here the agency relied on representations by a police chief which were contradicted by the facts.

 

, ,

PETITIONER, A TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUAL, WAS ENTITLED, FOR PERSONAL SAFETY REASONS, TO THE SEALING OF THE RECORD OF HER NAME-CHANGE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a transgender individual, was entitled, for her personal safety, to the sealing of the record of her name-change proceeding:

We analyzed Civil Rights Law § 64-a in Matter of Cody VV. (Brandi VV.) (226 AD3d 24 [3d Dept 2024]). There, Supreme Court — the same justice — denied an applicant’s request to seal the record of the applicant’s name-change proceeding … . Reversing the court’s denial and ordering the applicant’s record sealed, we observed, in sum and substance, that the relevant statutory language reflects the Legislature’s determination that transgender individuals face threats to their personal safety that are real, constant and everywhere … . Thus, only in an “extraordinary” case will there be a “substantial basis” to find that an open court record of a name change proceeding would not place a transgender applicant’s safety at risk … .

In a “customary” case like this one, protecting the applicant from the threat of harm posed by an open court record of a name change proceeding necessarily takes priority over the public’s ability to access that court record … . To reverse those priorities is to intrude upon the policymaking authority of the Legislature. To deny a sealing request based upon those inverted priorities is to abuse the limited judicial discretion available under Civil Rights Law § 64-a. To decline to seal the record despite the applicant’s showing of jeopardy is to place the applicant at risk of the very harms the statute is meant to guard against … .

​… [P]etitioner affirmed her transgender status and that she was seeking to change her name to one that reflects her female gender identity, which is the name she uses in her personal and professional life. She expressed her fear that public access to her name change would disclose her transgender status and place her at increased risk of hate crimes, harassment and other discrimination. In view of the totality of circumstances … , petitioner has demonstrated that she is entitled to have the record of her name change proceeding sealed pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 64-a … . Matter of Kieran B., 2025 NY Slip Op 06006, Third Dept 10-30-25

Practice Point: In Civil Rights Law 64-a, the legislature recognized the personal safety issues raised when a transgender individual seeks a name-change. Therefore, sealing of the name-change record reflects the legislative intent and should be the general rule.

 

,

THE JUDGE READ THE WRONG DEFINITION OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE TO THE JURY; NEW TRIAL ON THAT CHARGE ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s attempted robbery first degree conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined County Court provided the jury with the wrong definition of the offense:

Defendant was charged with attempted robbery in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 160.15 (2), defined as forcibly stealing property while armed with a deadly weapon. When the court instructed the jury on this count, it initially made reference to the requirement of being armed with a deadly weapon. However, when thereafter summarizing the elements of this crime, the court omitted the deadly weapon element and instead substituted in its place the element of causing serious physical injury to the victim, which is a different theory of robbery in the first degree … . This error was repeated by the court when the jury asked for the definitions of the crimes to be read back. Under these circumstances, the jury was left to consider an internally inconsistent definition of attempted robbery. Given that ” ‘the charge, read as a whole against the background of the evidence produced at trial, likely confused the jury regarding the correct rules to be applied in arriving at a decision’ ” … , the court’s error was not harmless and remittal for a new trial on this count is necessary … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 05847, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Here the judge’s reading the wrong definition of the charged offense to the jury required a new trial on that charge.

 

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