You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

THE INTOXICATED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHEN HE FLED FROM THE POLICE, WHILE RECKLESS, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE; DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reducing defendant’s conviction from depraved indifference murder to manslaughter, over a dissent, determined that the intoxicated defendant’s driving when fleeing from the police did not evince a complete disregard for the safety of others. Therefore the depraved indifference murder conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he credible evidence at trial made clear that defendant was extremely intoxicated, but his driving prior to police pursuit demonstrated that he was aware of his surroundings, obeyed multiple traffic signals and responded to the alerts of other drivers. Although he was traveling at an exceptionally high rate of speed during the pursuit, he did so “on a roadway designed to accommodate greater rates of speed than residential roads, at an hour when lighter traffic conditions predominated” … , and there is no evidence that he failed to abide by any traffic signals while he fled or that any vehicles were forced to pull over or move out of his way … . According deference to the jury’s credibility determinations, defendant did partially enter the lane of oncoming traffic for brief periods of time, but such “episodic” conduct stands in stark contrast to cases where the defendant traveled in an oncoming lane “as part of a deadly game” … . Defendant in fact largely chose to evade police not by weaving in and out of the oncoming lane but instead by driving on a wide, paved shoulder, and, even if his “attempted escape [was] carried out in a reckless manner,” he may “simultaneously intend to flee police and avoid striking other cars” … . “No contact occurred between [defendant’s] vehicle and any other vehicle before the accident” … , and the limited evidence of his proximity to other vehicles prior to the collision falls short of establishing the sort of “narrow[] miss[es]” the disregard of which could be some evidence of depraved indifference … . People v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 03945, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: Here the intoxicated defendant acted recklessly in fleeing from the police, but his driving did not evince a depraved indifference to the safety of other drivers. For the most part defendant followed the rules of the road and avoided other vehicles. Therefore the depraved indifference murder conviction was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Conviction reduced to manslaughter.

 

,

THE PEOPLE CAN NOT APPEAL THE GRANT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA, VACATE HER FELONY CONVICTION AND ALLOW HER TO PLEAD TO A MISDEMEANOR; DEFENDANT MADE THE MOTION AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF A DRUG-COURT TREATMENT PROGRAM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the People could not appeal County Court’s granting defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea, vacate her felony conviction and allow her to plead to a misdemeanor. Defendant made the motion after she completed a drug-court treatment program:

“It is well settled that no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute” … . “CPL 450.20 delineates the instances in which the People may appeal as of right to an intermediate appellate court” … . Here, judgment has not been entered. We find that County Court’s order resolved to be a postsentence, prejudgment motion and no right to appeal lies under CPL 450.20 … . We “may not resort to interpretative contrivances to broaden the scope and application of [this] statute[]” … , as the Legislature’s policy is “to limit appellate proliferation in criminal matters” … . “Absent a specific statute granting the People the right to appeal, . . . this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal” … . People v Backus, 2022 NY Slip Op 03949, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: The People can only appeal on the grounds described in the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). Here County Court granted defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea, vacate her felony conviction and allow her to plead to a misdemeanor, Her motion was made after she completed a drug-court treatment program. The CPL does not give the People the authority to appeal County Court’s grant of defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the referee’s failure to hold a hearing in a foreclosure action does not require reversal of a judgment of foreclosure if the defendant had an opportunity the challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court:

“CPLR 4313 requires a referee to notify the parties of the date and place for a hearing. However, hearings may be performed either on paper or by the taking of in-court evidence” … . Generally, “‘[a]s long as a defendant is not prejudiced by the inability to submit evidence directly to the referee, a referee’s failure to notify a defendant and hold a hearing is not, by itself, a basis to reverse a judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter for a hearing and a new determination of amounts owed'” … . This is because “the referee’s findings and recommendations are advisory only; they have no binding effect and the court remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute [as] CPLR 4403 expressly authorizes a court not only to reject the report but to make its own findings, to take or retake testimony or to order a new trial or hearing” … .

Here, defendants were provided with “an opportunity to challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court” upon plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report — an opportunity of which they did not avail themselves … .Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 2022 NY Slip Op 03951, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: Although the CPLR requires the referee in a foreclosure action to hold a hearing, the failure to hold the hearing is not reversible error as long as the defendant had the opportunity to challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT A PERSON UNDER ITS SUPERVISION AND CARE FROM HARMING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; PLAINTIFF WAS KIDNAPPED AND RAPED BY A PERSON WITH A VIOLENT PAST WHO WAS UNDER DEFENDANT’S CARE AND SUPERVISION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined the defendant Rehabilitation Support Services’ (RSS’s) motion for summary judgment in this negligence, negligent supervision, medical malpractice, negligent infliction of emotional distress action was properly denied. Plaintiff was kidnapped and raped by Jose Marlett who was under the care and supervision provided by RSS, a rehabilitation and recovery program for persons who have mental illness and substance abuse issues:

Marlett had been an outpatient client at RSS for approximately one year and had been a resident in its apartment program for approximately one to three months prior to his receipt of personal recovery services. Marlett’s application for RSS services included his diagnoses of bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, and a history of delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, suicidal and homicidal ideations and incarceration. RSS identified Marlett’s risks as suicide and violence, and noted that he had a history of physical altercations, threatening and attempting to harm others and was a danger to himself and others. In order to receive RSS services, Marlett was required to forego other psychiatric and mental health treatment and RSS essentially became the exclusive provider of Marlett’s medication management, clinical counseling, therapy and psychiatric assessments. * * *

… [W]e find that defendants failed to prove a lack of duty to take reasonable steps to prevent Marlett from harming members of the general public. * * *

[Re: medical malpractice] Defendants failed to submit a competent expert medical opinion, instead submitting a speculative and conclusory affidavit by its nonphysician director that failed to provide any factual basis showing that they complied with professional standards … .* * *

“A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires the plaintiff to show a breach of a duty owed to him or her which unreasonably endangered his or her physical safety, or caused him or her to fear for his or her own safety” … . “Unlike intentional infliction of emotional distress, … the Court of Appeals has not stated that extreme and outrageous conduct is an essential element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress” … . Doe v Langer, 2022 NY Slip Op 03957, Third Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Here defendant provided rehabilitative and recovery services for persons with mental illness and substance abuse problems. A person, with a violent past, was under defendant’s care and supervision when he kidnapped and raped plaintiff. Defendant did not demonstrate that it did not have a duty to protect members of the general public from a violent person under its care and supervision.

 

,

A GRADUATE OF AN ANTIGUA MEDICAL SCHOOL WHO HAD PASSED THE US MEDICAL LICENSING EXAMINATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO LICENSURE AS A PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appellant, who graduated from a medical school in Antigua (AUA) but was not licensed in New York, was not entitled to a license to practice in New York as a Physician’s Assistant (PA):

In processing his application, SED [NYS Department of Education] requested documentation from petitioner that he had graduated from a PA education program and passed the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination (hereinafter PANCE). Petitioner, who had not satisfied either requirement, objected to providing those credentials, asserting that his medical doctorate education and successful completion of all four steps of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (hereinafter USMLE) qualified him for a PA license. * * *

The record supports a finding that, despite significant overlap in basic topics tested in the USMLE and the PANCE, the PANCE specifically tests PA-related practice topics. Noting that professional exam questions “must be closely aligned with the specific knowledge and skills needed in the practice of the profession,” SED concluded that, “[w]hile many of the broad medical content categories included on the PANCE can be found on the USMLE, the USMLE does not present them within the context of the PA profession and specific PA job tasks” and, additionally, “a portion of the PANCE covers topics related specifically to PA professional practice, which are not covered at all on the USMLE.” Matter of Hammonds v New York State Educ. Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 03959, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: The topics tested by the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) are not identical to the topics tested by the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination (PANCE). Therefore passing the USMLE did not entitle this applicant to licensure as a physician’s assistant in New York.

 

, ,

THE WIFE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT (1) THE FAIRNESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, (2) WHETHER HER ATTORNEY, CHOSEN FOR HER, ENGAGED IN MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS, (3) WHETHER SHE RATIFIED THE AGREEMENT, AND (4) WHETHER SHE WAS ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the wife raised questions of fact about the fairness of the prenuptial agreement negotiations and whether she ratified the agreement. The wife alleged her husband chose the attorney who represented her merely to ensure she understood the agreement and not to negotiate its terms. In addition, Supreme Court should not have denied the wife’s motion for temporary maintenance:

On the last day of negotiations between counsel, the wife averred that she was preparing to travel to Florida with the parties’ children. While the communications submitted by the husband in support of his motion indicate that counsel for the parties continued discussing potential changes to the agreement, there is conflicting evidence establishing the extent that the wife was meaningfully involved in those discussions. The wife further averred that the first opportunity she had to review the agreement was in Florida, at which point it was already in its final form. We find that the foregoing facts, if established, raise issues concerning whether the wife was meaningfully represented during the abbreviated negotiations, and also raise an inference that the husband did not intend on engaging in a good faith negotiation of the agreement from the outset, which, if true, would be sufficient to establish overreaching on his part … . …

We further … the husband’s contention that the wife ratified the agreement and is therefore foreclosed from challenging its validity. … [I]t is clear that the wife did not begin receiving benefits under the agreement until the husband commenced this divorce action, and she took sufficiently prompt action to challenge the validity of the agreement in the context of this litigation … . …

… Supreme Court improperly denied the wife’s cross motion for temporary maintenance. To this end, the wife argues that the maintenance provision of the agreement must be invalidated for failing to comply with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law former § 236 (B) (5-a) (f). We agree. Spiegel v Spiegel, 2022 NY Slip Op 03778, Third Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce action there were questions of fact whether the wife was meaningfully represented in the prenuptial-agreement negotiations and whether she ratified the agreement. In addition, pursuant to the Domestic Relation Law, Supreme Court should have awarded temporary maintenance.

 

,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have held a hearing on father’s petition for a modification of custody:

… [T]he father alleged … that, since the prior order, he has relocated to a small, quiet apartment but now has a lengthy commute each way to exercise his parenting time, the child wishes to spend more time with him and the prior order provides him with a limited amount of a parenting time when considering the progress he has made to care for the child. Family Court sua sponte dismissed the father’s petition without prejudice, finding that the father failed to allege a sufficient change in circumstances. The father appeals.

Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without holding a hearing. “A parent seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation is required to demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since entry thereof that then warrants the court engaging in an analysis as to the best interests of the child” … . “While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing” … , “[g]enerally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” … . Matter of Neil VV. v Joanne WW., 2022 NY Slip Op 03557, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Where, as here, a facially sufficient petition for a modification of custody had been filed, petitioner is entitled to a hearing.

 

,

IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; MATTER SENT BACK TO SURROGATE’S COURT TO DEVELOP A RECORD ON THE DOMICILE ISSUE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined a hearing should be held to determine decedent’s domicile. Decedent was a world traveler who owned property in Germany and executed a holographic will in Germany. If Germany was his domicile, New York may recognize the holographic will:

… [D]ecedent was initially domiciled in New Jersey before he left the United States in 2014 … . Since decedent’s domicile had been established, “unlike mere physical residency, [domicile] is presumed to continue until a new one is acquired and is controlled by the subjective intent of the party claiming domicile” … . This determination generally involves questions of both fact and law “and is based upon ‘conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . Where there are particularly unique facts, like here with decedent being a perpetual world traveler, domicile is often “a question of fact rather than law, and it frequently depends upon a variety of circumstances, which differ as widely as the peculiarities of individuals” … .

Domicile is particularly important where, like here, there is a petition to probate a holographic will. Although there are limited circumstances where a holographic will may be validly executed in New York (see EPTL 3-2.2), New York courts may nevertheless accept holographic wills that are “executed and attested in accordance with the local law of . . . [t]he jurisdiction in which the testator was domiciled, either at the time of execution or of death” (EPTL 3-5.1 [c] [3] …). In doing so, New York courts may take judicial notice of the laws of other countries and, as a matter of comity, may accept the findings of foreign courts (see CPLR 4511 [b] …).

… [T]he record was incomplete and must be further developed as it relates to the proceedings in Germany. Specifically, we are concerned over the omission of the certificate of inheritance — which petitioner argues established decedent’s domicile in Germany — as such document may, if afforded comity, be dispositive … . Matter of Noichl, 2022 NY Slip Op 03558, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Determination of a person’s domicile is a question of law and fact, depending in part on the person’s intent. Here, if Germany was decedent’s domicile at the time the holographic German will was executed, or at the time of death, New York may recognize the German holographic will. Matter sent back to develop a factual record on the domicile issue.

 

, , , ,

CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s treating physician (Hopson) in this personal injury case should have been allowed to testify as an expert, despite the failure to comply with full expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101. The Third Department is the only department which requires such full expert disclosure by a treating physician and claimant’s attorney had not practiced in the Third Department:

There is no dispute that claimant failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) in identifying Hopson as a witness. Nevertheless, we disagree with the Court of Claims’ finding that claimant’s excuse was unreasonable. The situation here mirrors that in Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist. (151 AD3d 1254), where we accepted the explanation of the plaintiffs’ attorney that he was “unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record [was] otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful” … . The same holds true here, as claimant’s attorney revealed that she practices law in a different judicial department and candidly conceded that she was unaware of this Court’s interpretation that the statute requires expert disclosure for treating physicians. There is nothing in the record calling into question the veracity of counsel’s representations and no basis to conclude that the noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was willful. As such, the court erred in precluding Hopson’s testimony as an expert witness…. . Freeman v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 03559, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Only the Third Department requires full expert-witness disclosure for a treating physician.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY, COMMON-LAW INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s indemnity claims against plaintiff’s employer (Sodexo) in this slip and fall case should have been dismissed. Defendant, as the property-owner, was responsible for the structural maintenance of the stairwell where plaintiff fell. The fall was not caused by debris on the stairwell, which was Sodexo’s only responsibility under its contract with defendant:

While defendant argued … that Sodexo’s responsibility to “provide basic housekeeping to all areas of operation during the course of the operating day” included the subject stairs, it is clear from the incident report and post incident/accident root cause analysis form that the staircase was clear of obstructions, objects, substances and debris of any sort. Accordingly, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether [the] accident was caused by Sodexo’s sole negligence, so Sodexo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendant’s cause of action for contractual indemnity. * * *

Defendant has not alleged any scenario under which it could be held vicariously or statutorily liable for any negligence of Sodexo. Accordingly, Sodexo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendant’s cause of action for common-law indemnification … .

… Inasmuch as defendant failed to raise an issue of fact as to Sodexo’s negligence, defendant is not entitled to contribution from Sodexo, and Sodexo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s contribution cause of action should have been granted. O’Toole v Marist Coll., 2022 NY Slip Op 03560, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Defendant property owner’s actions against plaintiff’s employer for contractual and common law indemnity and contribution should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s slip and fall was not the result of any act or omission on plaintiff’s employer’s part. The criteria for indemnity and contribution causes of action are explained.

 

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