You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

A RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING DOES NOT AFFECT THE NYS COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT REGULATIONS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER “MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS” BUT WHICH EXEMPT POLICIES PROVIDED BY “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS” DO NOT IMPAIR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, on remand from the US Supreme Court, determined the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia [141 S Ct 1868] did not overturn the NYS Court of Appeals ruling in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany [7 NY3d 510]. In Catholic Charities the Court of Appeals held the requirement that health insurance policies cover “medically necessary abortions” but which exempts policies provided by “religious employers” did not impair the free exercise of religion:

… Catholic Charities “is not directly inconsistent with the rationale employed by the United States Supreme Court in any subsequent case, and is thus binding on us as an intermediate appellate court” … .Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2022 NY Slip Op 03550, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The NYS Court of Appeals ruling In Catholic Charitie [7 NY3d 510] approving the requirement that health insurance policies cover “medically necessary abortions” (with an exemption for “religious employers”) was not affected by the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court in Fulton v Philadelphia [141 S Ct 1868].

 

,

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING THE LOBBYING ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROCEED; PLAINTIFFS ENGAGED IN “GRASSROOTS LOBBYING” IN SUPPORT OF PASSAGE OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined plaintiffs’ action alleging the Lobbying Act was unconstitutional as applied to them (First Amendment) should have been allowed to proceed. The opinion is too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. Plaintiffs engaged in publicity aimed at passage of the Child Victims Act (CVA), which extends the statute of limitations for civil and criminal actions stemming from the sexual abuse of children. Although the NYS Joint Commission of Public Ethics (JCOPE) did not end up enforcing the registration and reporting requirements of the Lobbying Act with respect to the plaintiffs’ past activities, it indicated future enforcement if plaintiffs continued with their “grassroots lobbying” efforts:

Plaintiff Katherine C. Sullivan, a resident of Florida, supported the CVA and expressed that support, among other ways, through a website that explained that Sullivan was a survivor of child sexual assault that she was subjected to while attending a school in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County, but that she was barred from seeking legal recourse by then-applicable statutes of limitations. A list of state senators who opposed the CVA was provided, along with a script and postcard template for website visitors to contact state senators to voice support for the CVA. Sullivan also rented digital billboard space in this state that displayed a rotating set of screens, one of which purportedly read, “NY Pass the Child Victims Act,” and another that displayed photographs of state senators next to text asking why they did not support the CVA. Some of the screens also purportedly displayed Sullivan’s website address; all of the screens indicated that they were paid for by plaintiff Kat Sullivan LLC (hereinafter the LLC). Sullivan later arranged for an airplane to circle the Capitol and the school in Troy towing banners that displayed, among other things, the address of her aforementioned website and the hashtag #NYPASSCVA. Sullivan v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 2022 NY Slip Op 03553, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs challenged whether the Lobbying Act, which requires lobbyists to register and report, was constitutional as applied to their “grassroots” efforts to garner support for the passage of the Child Victims Act. Supreme Court had dismissed the action. The Third Department partially reinstated it.

 

GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined drivers who work for Groundanywhere, like the drivers who work for Uber, are employees not independent contractors, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Shortly after the [Unemployment Insurance Appeal] Board’s decision here, we held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc in upstate New York were employees of Uber … . We find that the relationship between Groundanywhere and its drivers is not materially distinguishable from the employment relationship between Uber and its drivers. The record reflects that Groundanywhere uses a smartphone app that is essentially similar to the one used by Uber and exercises a comparable level of control over its drivers, providing substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant and other similarly situated drivers were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and for whom Groundanywhere was liable for additional contributions … . The indicia of control include use of an app owned by Groundanywhere, which reviews and screens drivers’ various credentials and inspects their vehicles for compliance with its standards, provides drivers with a GPS navigation system, tests their knowledge of geography and ability to use GPS, and handles both driver and client complaints and problems that arise during the transport. Groundanywhere coordinates and oversees all aspects of the ride through its app, tracking the drivers and the ride on GPS and running a help desk for the drivers and controlling the drivers’ access to its clients. Groundanywhere sets and calculates the fares, keeps a set percent as a fee, charges the client a processing fee, adds a gratuity which, if disputed by the client, results in the driver getting a higher percent of the fare in lieu of a gratuity, collects the charges from the client and pays a percent of the base charge to the drivers, who are paid even if the client fails to show up for the trip or disputes the charges. Although drivers use and maintain their own vehicles and pay all vehicle expenses, they display a Groundanywhere logo and are reimbursed for tolls and parking costs. Clients are able to rate drivers, who are selected based upon their location, ratings and history of accepting offered fares. Matter of Hossain (Groundanywhere LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 03424, Third Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: Uber drivers, and drivers for similar outfits like Groundanywhere, are employees, not independent contractors, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

 

,

PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DENIED DUE PROCEES WHEN HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT WHICH RESULTED IN THE MISBEHAVIOR CHARGE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the petitioner-inmate’s misbehavior determination, held that the petitioner was denied due process by not being given the opportunity to see the video of the incident:

“[A]n [incarcerated individual] ‘should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his [or her] defense when permitting him [or her] to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals'” … . The videotaped incident occurred while petitioner was incarcerated at a different facility. The Hearing Officer informed petitioner that, due to the format of the video, it could not be played in the hearing room and could only be played on equipment located in a secure area of the facility from which petitioner was barred entry. The Hearing Officer stated that he had viewed the video in the secure area, and he described what he believed the video depicted. Petitioner objected, arguing that he was being prevented from providing exculpatory testimony as to what occurred in the video. The Hearing Officer denied the objection, stating that ‘the video speaks for itself,’ and the record reflects that he relied, in part, on the video in reaching the determination of guilt. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the explanation that the only video equipment capable of playing the video was in a secure area, without any apparent attempt to either move the equipment or find other equipment capable of playing the video for petitioner, did not articulate institutional safety or correctional goals sufficient to justify denying petitioner’s right to reply to evidence against him … .. Similarly, the fact that petitioner may have seen the video at his former facility during a prior hearing on these charges before a different Hearing Officer, a hearing that resulted in a determination that was administratively reversed, does not excuse the denial of petitioner’s right to view the video during the new hearing and offer exculpatory testimony as to its contents … .

As to the remedy, we conclude that a new hearing, not expungement, is appropriate. Matter of Proctor v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 03298, Third Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Prison inmates charged with misbehavior have due process rights. Here the petitioner-inmate was entitled to see the video which allegedly depicted the charged misbehavior. The determination was annulled and a new hearing ordered.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEVANT DECISION [PEOPLE VS RUDOLPH] CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED, THE DECISION CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE PROCESS WAS COMPLETE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department, noting that the relevant law was announced after defendant’s sentencing but while the appeal was pending, determined County Court’s failure to consider whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status required vacation of the sentence and remittal for resentencing:

There is no dispute that Rudolph [21 NY2d at 499], which was decided after defendant was sentenced but before the appellate process was complete, required County Court to make a determination as to whether defendant, as an eligible youth, should be adjudicated a youthful offender, notwithstanding that no request was made for such treatment (see CPL 720.20 [1] …). Whether to grant youthful offender status lies within the discretion of the sentencing court and cannot be dispensed with through the plea-bargaining process … . Although this Court is “vested with the broad, plenary power to modify a sentence in the interest of justice, . . . and, if warranted, exercise our power to adjudicate [a] defendant a youthful offender” … , we decline defendant’s invitation to do so here, in the complete absence of any consideration by the sentencing court, either summarily or otherwise, as to whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender. As such, we deem it appropriate, under such circumstances, to remit the matter to permit County Court the opportunity to make the initial discretionary determination as to whether youthful offender status for defendant is warranted, after the parties fully set forth their positions for and against such treatment … . Without expressing any opinion as to whether youthful offender adjudication should be afforded defendant, in the event that County Court grants such status upon remittal, which would result in the court imposing a lower sentence than the parties negotiated[*2], the People must be given an opportunity to withdraw consent to the plea bargain … People v Simon, 2022 NY Slip Op 03277, Third Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Even if the requirement that youthful offender status be considered for all potentially eligible defendants was not in force when a defendant was sentenced, if the decision imposing the requirement (People vs Rudolph) came down before defendant’s appellate process was complete, defendant is entitled to resentencing applying the new law.

 

,

DESPITE THE APPARENT FAILURE TO PRESERVE A VIDEO OF A MEETING DURING WHICH PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY PLANNED A DEMONSTRATION AT THE PRISON, THE DETERMINATION FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF PLANNING THE DEMONSTRATION WAS CONFIRMED; THE DISSENT ARGUED PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS BY THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE VIDEO, WHICH HAD BEEN REVIEWED BY THE OFFICER WHO PREPARED THE MISBEHAVIOR REPORT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department confirmed the determination finding petitioner-inmate guilty of urging others to participate in a demonstration at the prison. There was a video of the meeting where the demonstration was allegedly planned. An officer who witnessed the meeting and testified about it apparently viewed the video. Petitioner made timely requests for the video, but it was never provided. The dissent argued the failure to retain and provide the video of the alleged meeting required that the determination be annulled:

From the dissent:

The sergeant and the correction officer have described two distinctly different meetings, one involving 12 people, the other 30 to 40 … . This discrepancy heightens the relevance of the … video, as does the fact that the sergeant viewed the video and the Hearing Officer was uncertain whether that viewing occurred before or after the undefined retention period expired. Complicating matters, the Hearing Officer noted the three-week delay between the … meeting and issuance and service of the misbehavior report on petitioner.

… In a situation such as this, where there is an extended delay in issuing a misbehavior report and the author of that report has in fact reviewed a video, it is incumbent upon the correctional facility to preserve that evidence … . The failure to do so here compromised petitioner’s due process right to a fair evidentiary hearing … . That is particularly so in view of the sergeant’s affirmative testimony as to what ostensibly happened in the E-yard on May 29, 2020. It is further evident that the Hearing Officer should have, but failed to, inquire further as to the existence of the video or the circumstances of its deletion … Matter of Headley v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 03166, Third Dept 5-12-22

Practice Point: Inmates subjected to disciplinary actions by prison authorities have due process rights. Here the dissent argued that the failure to preserve and provide a video of the meeting at which petitioner-inmate allegedly planned a prison demonstration deprived him of his due process rights. The dissenter would have annulled the determination on that ground.

 

,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the relation-back doctrine did not save the petition challenging a use variance. The initial petition was dismissed for failure to name a necessary party, Rosa Kuehn. The subsequent amended petition, which included the necessary party, was dismissed as time-barred:

Supreme Court correctly determined that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine. That doctrine “permits a petitioner to amend a petition to add a respondent even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the petitioner can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added respondent is united in interest with a previously named respondent, and (3) that the later-added respondent knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by petitioners as to the later-added respondent’s identity, the proceeding would have also been brought against him or her” … .

… [P]etitioners simply cannot meet the third and final condition and therefore cannot avail themselves of the doctrine. Indeed, Rosa Kuehn was appropriately named as a respondent and identified as the landowner of the subject property in petitioners’ successful challenge to the use variance issued in 2013 … ; “thus, this simply is not an instance where the identity of a respondent . . . was in doubt or there was some question regarding that party’s status” … . Matter of Nemeth v K-Tooling, 2022 NY Slip Op 03034, Third Department 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here a necessary party was not named in the petition and the petition was dismissed for that reason. The amended petition, which named the necessary party, was time-barred. The relation-back doctrine could not be invoked to save the amended petition because the identity of the necessary party was known to the petitioners who had named her in a related petition in 2013.

 

STAFFING COMPANY WHICH SCREENED JOB APPLICANTS FOR ITS CLIENTS WAS NOT AN EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined Strikeforce Staffing was not an employer of the persons for whom it found employment with its clients. Therefore, Strikeforce was not liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to the claimant and others similarly situated:

Strikeforce recruited job seekers for its clients, businesses in need of workers, by placing advertisements on various websites. For example, claimant completed an application on Indeed.com for a line production position at a bakery. Strikeforce would first screen a job seeker’s application to see if he or she potentially met a client’s needs and, if so, send the individual for an interview with the client. The client would make a hiring decision and, according to the testimony of the owner and operator of Strikeforce, Strikeforce clients did not hire about 30% to 40% of the applicants referred to them. If hired, the client, not Strikeforce, would provide the worker with his or her rate of pay, which the worker was free to negotiate with the client, and the worker’s schedule. * * *

As Strikeforce does not exercise any control over the manner in which the workers hired by its clients perform their services, the means used to supply those services or the results produced, we cannot find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that Strikeforce exercised sufficient direction, supervision and control over claimant, and those similarly situated, to demonstrate an employment relationship … . Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02849, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: A staffing company which screens job applicants for its clients but which exercises no supervisory control over the applicants who are hired is not liable for unemployment insurance contributions.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TRUST SET UP BY DECEDENT; PLAINITIFFS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGED THE DECEDENT (A THIRD PARTY), NOT THE PLAINTIFFS, RELIED ON THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE STATEMENT; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS EXERCISED UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER THE DECEDENT WHICH AFFECTED THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE-RELATED DECISIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the complaint did not state a cause of action for fraud because it was alleged a third-party (the decedent), not plaintiffs, relied upon the alleged false statement; (2) the complaint stated a cause of action for “undue influence” on the decedent by the defendants; and (3), the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the validity of the trust set up by the decedent. It was alleged that the decedent made decisions about the disposition of his assets based upon the false assertion that his daughter-in-law killed his son:

Here, as the grandchildren were given specific bequests in decedent’s … last will and testament, and the instrument creating the trust … reserved to decedent a limited power of appointment to name his grandchildren as possible beneficiaries of trust assets upon his death, the grandchildren are interested persons within the meaning of the SCPA, so plaintiffs have capacity to challenge the validity of the trust … . …

… [P]laintiffs cannot state a cause of action for fraud because the Court of Appeals has expressly declined “to extend the reliance element of fraud to include a claim based on the reliance of a third party” … . … As to plaintiffs’ cause of action asserting undue influence, plaintiffs’ broadly-stated theory is that, upon the death of the deceased son, the previously absent defendants drove a wedge between the daughter-in-law and decedent, took control of decedent’s caretaking as he aged and grew infirm and then moved him into defendants’ home where decedent created the trust and conveyed into it his assets to benefit defendants and the son upon his death. … [A]ffording the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference … , we find that such allegations are enough to assert a cause of action for undue influence … . Constantine v Lutz, 2022 NY Slip Op 02842, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: To state a cause of action for fraud, it must be alleged the plaintiff(s), not a third party (the decedent in this case), relied on the alleged false statement. Here plaintiffs alleged the decedent made estate-related decisions based upon the false statement that his daughter-in-law killed his son. Because of the absence of the “reliance” element of fraud, that cause of action was properly dismissed.

 

THE MODIFICATION OF THE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER MUST BE IN THE BESTS INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSON; HERE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPFATHER AS LIMITED COGUARDIAN CONSTITUTED A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT IN THE DISABLED PERSON’S BEST INTERESTS BECAUSE CONSISTENCY IN ROUTINE AND REGIMEN WAS PARAMOUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Surrogate’s Court, determined the appointment of the stepfather as limited cogurdian of Jonathan JJ, a developmentally disable adult, was not in Jonathan’s best interests. Jonathan had apparently thrived with his father as guardian and his stepfather had not seen Jonathan since 2009:

… Surrogate’s Court granted the father’s petition for coguardianship of the person and property of Jonathan JJ. along with the Commissioner. The court also appointed the stepfather as a limited coguardian with the ability to attend only the medical appointments of Jonathan JJ. The father appeals, arguing that Surrogate’s Court erred in appointing the stepfather as a limited coguardian.

In order to modify an existing guardianship order, it must be shown that such change would further the best interests of the person who is intellectually or developmentally disabled … . Such a modification is warranted where it is necessary to protect the “‘personal and/or financial interests'” of the person with a disability … , or “as may be deemed necessary or proper for the welfare” of such person … . …

The testimony elicited at the hearing demonstrated that Jonathan JJ. has thrived from consistency in his routine and regimen. In that regard, his outbursts were a primary concern among his treatment providers, and the routine that was put in place, together with management by medical personnel, helped control the outbursts, as well as contributed to other positive physical, medical and cognitive improvements in his life. Matter of Jonathan JJ. (Alan JJ.–Caren KK.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02837, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: Any modification of an existing guardianship of a developmentally disabled adult must be found to be in the disabled person’s best interests. Here consistency in regimen and routine was paramount. The appointment of stepfather, who had not seen the disabled person since 2009, as limited coguardian was deemed a change that would disrupt the successful regimen and routine.

 

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