You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

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.

 

DESPITE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SAY WHICH OF TWO CRACKS IN THE PAVEMENT CAUSED HIS FALL, THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED TO WITHSTAND SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall. Plaintiff alleged that one of two cracks in the pavement caused the fall:

Plaintiff testified that, on the day of the incident, the weather was clear and there was no snow or debris on the surface of the parking lot. He had parked his car in the parking lot and was approaching the front door of the store when his foot suddenly “hit something along the pavement and . . . stopped,” causing him to fall to the ground. An individual who was walking behind plaintiff came to his aid, helping plaintiff up off the ground and assisting him back to his vehicle. At the time of his fall, plaintiff did not look at the ground to determine the cause. However, he recalled that, after being helped back to his vehicle, he looked back and noticed a cracked area of the pavement where he had fallen. Plaintiff was shown photographs of the parking lot and identified the location of his fall by circling in one of the photographs an uneven area of the pavement with two cracks in close proximity to one another. Upon further questioning, plaintiff was unable to identify which of the two cracks caused the fall, but repeatedly testified that he knew it was one of those two cracks based upon where he landed when he fell.

… Although plaintiff’s statements were not without some inconsistencies, he was steadfast in his testimony that he tripped on one of the two identified cracks in the pavement of the parking lot. Despite Supreme Court’s suggestion to the contrary, plaintiff was not required to state for certain which particular crack caused him to fall in order to withstand summary judgment … . Bovee v Posniewski Enters., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03561, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was able to testify that one of two cracks in the pavement was the cause of his fall. The cause was sufficiently identified to withstand summary judgment.​

 

,

IN THIS Y-INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, (1) THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE THAT OVERGROWN FOLIAGE BLOCKED LINES OF SIGHT; (2) QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING INADQUATE SIGNAGE AND NEGLIGENT ROADWAY DESIGN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Y-intersection traffic accident case, determined:(1) the cause of action against the town alleging overgrown foliage blocked drivers’ line of sight should have been dismissed because the town demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition; (2) the written-notice requirement does not apply to the causes of action alleging inadequate signage and negligent design, which properly survived summary judgment:

By its submission of the affidavits of its Town Clerk and Superintendent of Highways who both averred that, after review of the pertinent records, no written notice was received pertaining to any alleged defective or dangerous condition caused by or from overgrown trees … , the Town successfully shifted the burden to plaintiffs to establish an issue of fact as to prior written notice, which plaintiffs failed to do … .

As to plaintiffs’ claims pertaining to inadequate signage and negligent design of the intersection, we agree that prior written notice requirements do not apply to these alleged defects … . * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates that, at the very least, at some point in the modern era the roads were paved and signage was installed. The Town has provided no proof as to when or how often these activities have been undertaken or that they were completed in compliance with the standards in place at the time … .

We further agree that Supreme Court properly rejected the Town’s contention that plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence by the Town were negated by [the drivers’] familiarity with the intersection. …  … [I]t cannot be said that this Y intersection was reasonably safe as a matter of law, nor did the Town conclusively demonstrate that placing the stop sign in a different location would have resulted in the same conduct by [the drivers]. … [T]riable issues of fact exist as to whether the signage at the intersection was a proximate cause of the accident … . Read v Bell, 2022 NY Slip Op 03563, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, a municipality will not be liable for overgrown foliage which blocks lines of sight if the town has not been provided with written notice of the condition. The written-notice requirement does not apply to causes of action alleging the accident was caused by inadequate signage or negligent roadway design.

 

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