You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE TO WORK (USUALLY NOT COMPENSABLE), HIS INJURY WAS FOUND COMPENSABLE BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE (WCLJ) UNDER THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION; BECAUSE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board did not address the basis of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s (WCLJ’s) ruling that claimant was entitled to benefits. Claimant was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle to work. Although travel to work is usually not covered by Workers’ Compensation, the WCLJ found that “claimant was engaged in a special errand given that he was traveling for the purpose of an overtime assignment and at a location different from his regular work locations.” That issue was not addressed by the Board:

In finding that the claim was compensable, the WCLJ found that claimant was engaged in a special errand given that he was traveling for the purpose of an overtime assignment and at a location different from his regular work locations. The Board, however, did not address the exception relied upon by the WCLJ but, instead, found that the outside employee exception did not apply in concluding that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of claimant’s employment. Whether an exception to the general rule applies turns on the Board’s fact-intensive analysis of the particular circumstances of a given case … , and “[t]he courts are bound by the . . . Board’s findings of fact which, including the ultimate fact of arising out of and in the course [of employment], must stand unless erroneous in law and regardless of whether conflicting evidence is available” … . The fact that claimant was not an outside employee, as found by the Board, is not dispositive as to whether the special errand exception applies, which was the basis of the WCLJ’s finding that claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. As the Board has made no findings of fact with regard to whether the special errand exception applies, the matter must be remitted to the Board for further proceedings in regard to this particular issue…. . Matter of Waters v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02474, Third Dept 4-14-22

​Practice Point: Although injury while traveling to work is usually not covered by Workers’ Compensation, there are exceptions, including the “special errand” exception which was deemed to apply here by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge.

 

BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NONSCHEDULE AWARD DUE TO RETIREMENT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was entitled to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award because he was not eligible for a nonschedule award due to retirement:

A nonschedule award “is based [up]on a factual determination of the effect that the [permanent partial] disability has on the claimant’s future wage-earning capacity” and is mathematically derived from a claimant’s average weekly wages and wage-earning capacity … . On the other hand, an SLU award is designed to compensate for a claimant’s “loss of earning power” as a result of anatomical or functional losses or impairments … and, as such, “‘is not allocable to any particular period of disability'” … and is “independent of the time an employee actually loses from work” … . That said, “[a] claimant who sustains both schedule and nonschedule injuries in the same accident may receive only one initial award,” because SLU and nonschedule awards “are both intended to compensate a claimant for loss of wage-earning capacity sustained in a work-related accident[,] and concurrent payment of an award for a schedule loss and an award for a nonschedule permanent partial disability for injuries arising out of the same work-related accident would amount to duplicative compensation” … . “However, in the unique circumstance where no initial award is made based on a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification, a claimant is entitled to an SLU award” for the permanent impairments sustained in the same work-related accident … . …

… [T]here is no dispute that claimant is not entitled to a nonschedule award based upon his nonschedule classification because he voluntarily retired in April 2020 and was therefore not attached to the labor market at the time of classification … . Thus, as “no initial award [wa]s made based [up]on [claimant’s] nonschedule permanent partial disability classification” … , he “is entitled to an SLU award for the permanent partial impairments to [his] statutorily-enumerated body members” … . Finally, and contrary to the position taken by the Board, the fact that claimant voluntarily retired, and was therefore not attached to the labor market, does not preclude him from receiving an SLU award, because “it is axiomatic that a claimant’s lack of attachment to the labor market, voluntary or otherwise, is irrelevant to a determination as to entitlement to an SLU award” … . Matter of Gambardella v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02475, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: This Workers’ Compensation case includes a clear explanation of a “nonschedule award” versus a “schedule loss of use (SLU)” award.

 

,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE A FLYER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHICH INDICATED IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO WHETHER CLAIMANT WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED HER EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant should have been allowed to present evidence that her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not willful. Based on a flyer put out by the Department of Labor, claimant allegedly believed that she needed to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment insurance:

At the hearing, claimant requested to admit over 50 pages of documentation into the record. Included in these documents is a flyer, which claimant contends was on the Department of Labor’s website and led her to believe that, despite not being eligible for state unemployment benefits, she may have been entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance under federal legislation that was put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic. Claimant argues that she understood this flyer to mean that she was required to apply for state unemployment benefits to obtain relief under the federal legislation. A fair interpretation of the flyer supports that contention. Also included in these documents is evidence of claimant’s many attempts to contact the Department of Labor to determine whether she was, in fact, entitled to the benefits that she was receiving. As these documents bear directly on the issue of determining whether claimant’s misrepresentation was willful, as well as on claimant’s credibility, not allowing them into evidence denied her “a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim” and did, in fact, deprive her of a fair hearing … . Matter of Nottage (Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02476, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: Here a flyer put out by the Department of Labor indicated it was necessary to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment benefits. Claimant sought to introduce the flyer in evidence to show her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not “willful.” The evidence should have been considered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DISCOVERABLE MATERIALS TO THE DEFENDANT UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ALLOW THE ISSUES TO BE FULLY LITIGATED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the protective order upon an expedited review (CPL 245.70), determined that defense counsel should have been provided with the People’s application to withhold certain discoverable materials from the defendant until a week before trial:

Inasmuch as the People offered no basis to withhold these materials from defense counsel and, in fact, pursuant to the proposed order submitted by the People, defense counsel would be permitted to access them as soon as County Court signed the order, the better practice would have been to permit defense counsel access to the application and materials prior to the hearing on the protective order so that counsel could participate in it to the fullest extent practicable. …

Defense counsel should, with the appropriate caveat not to disclose them to or discuss their contents with his client pending determination of the application, be permitted to view the application and the materials at issue and thereby meaningfully participate in the hearing before County Court in order to advocate on behalf of his client and assist in reaching an appropriate outcome. Accordingly, the instant application should be granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing following further disclosure to defense counsel. People v Escobales, 2022 NY Slip Op 02354, Third Dept 4-8-22

Practice Point: Here County Court should have disclosed to defense counsel the People’s application to withhold certain discoverable materials from the defendant until a week before trial. Without the application, defense counsel could not fully litigate the issues. (The People had no objection to disclosing the withheld materials to defense counsel as soon as the requested order of protection was signed.)

 

,

THE JUDGE, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS SENTENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM MAKING “ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS” WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the judge who denied defendant’s second motion to set aside his sentence should not have precluded defendant from making “additional applications” without the permission of the court:

We … agree with defendant that County Court abused its discretion in ordering that prior court approval was required before any further motions were filed. Notably, the authority cited by County Court — 22 NYCRR part 130-1.1 — by its own terms applies to only civil actions or proceedings (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). Moreover, even if such authority does exist in a criminal action … , defendant has not engaged in sufficiently excessive, protracted and/or unwarranted litigation as to justify such action here. … . People v Maloy, 2022 NY Slip Op 02312, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: Here the court abused its discretion in prohibiting defendant, who had made two motions to set aside his sentence, from making additional motions without permission from the court. It is questionable whether a judge has that authority on the criminal, as opposed to civil, side.

 

HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 a nd 240(1) causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was told to deliver sheetrock through an opening where heavy double barn doors were being restored. The hinges had been removed and the doors were held in place by wooden wedges. The doors fell on plaintiff. The Third Department found there were questions of fact whether the doors presented a dangerous condition (Labor Law 200), an elevation-related hazard (Labor Law 240(1), and whether the project was commercial in nature such that the homeowner exemption did not apply. With regard to the homeowner exemption, the court wrote:

Although Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners to protect workers engaged in construction-related activities, “the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” … . “That exemption, however, is not available to an owner who uses or intends to use the dwelling only for commercial purposes” … .

… [D]efendants, as the parties seeking the benefit of the statutory exemption, had the burden of establishing that the property was not being used solely for commercial purposes … . This they failed to do. [Defendant’s] deposition testimony established that he is a professional musician and that the structure was being altered to use as a music studio and a photography workspace. Moreover, defendants failed to submit an affidavit addressing whether they intended to use the structure for commercial or noncommercial purposes. [W]e find that defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the homeowner exemption as a matter of law and that a question of fact exists regarding the application of the homeowner exemption … .Hawver v Steele, 2022 NY Slip Op 02322, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: The homeowner exemption to Labor Law liability does not apply where the construction is for commercial purposes. Here the defendants did not demonstrate the renovation of a barn for use as a music studio was not for commercial purposes. Therefore defendants motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted.

 

,

A PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTER INJURED WHILE TRAINING TO COMPLETE A FIRE BASIC TRAINING PROGRAM WAS INJURED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, ENTITLING HIM TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A DISBILITY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined Supreme Court properly found petitioner, a probationary firefighter, was entitled to disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-a. The fact that petitioner was injured while training for a test required for the completion of a fire basic training program did not mean petitioner was not injured in the performance of his duties, as argued by the city:

Although petitioner’s injury did not occur in the course of his actual performance of the required test, successful completion of the candidate physical ability test was a necessary requirement of petitioner’s position, and petitioner was engaged in the expected and foreseeable task of practicing for that test during a mandatory training program that was part of his duties as a probationary firefighter … . The record further reflects that petitioner was attending the Fire Academy at the direction of the City, that the training was paid for by the City and that petitioner was receiving full pay for his attendance and participation in the program. Mindful that, as a remedial statute, General Municipal Law § 207-a “should be liberally construed in favor of the injured employees the statute was designed to protect” … , we find that the requisite causal relationship exists between petitioner’s job duties and his injury … . Matter of Smith v City of Norwich, 2022 NY Slip Op 02324, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: A probationary firefighter injured while training to complete a fire basic training program was injured in the “performance of his duties” and is therefore entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a disability benefits.

 

BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CHARGED CRIMES WITH THE ELEMENT THAT THE VICTIM WAS LESS THAN 17; BOTH HAD THE WRONG BIRTH DATE FOR THE VICTIM WHICH THEREBY ALLEGED THE VICTIM WAS MORE THAN 17; THAT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the superior court information, determined that both the indictment and the subsequent superior court information were jurisdictionally defective. Both charged sexual offenses with the victim being less than 17 years old as an element. Both had the wrong birth date for the victim, which placed the victim’s age at more than 17 years old. The Third Department noted that the indictment, which was replaced by the superior court information, was improperly amended to reflect the correct birth date:

… [T]he superior court information specifically cited and charged defendant with endangering the welfare of a child under Penal Law § 260.10 (1), which provides that “[a] person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when . . . [h]e or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old” (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). However, the superior court information also alleged that, “[o]n or about November 13, 2016, . . . the defendant . . . did knowingly act in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old, . . . having a date of birth of 6/2/1999, by engaging in oral sexual conduct with” the victim. Inasmuch as the offense of endangering the welfare of a child requires that the victim be less than 17 years old, we find that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to effectively charge defendant with the commission of a crime where the date of birth indicated that the victim was 17 at the time of the offense … .

Although a trial court may permit an indictment to be amended “with respect to defects, errors or variances from the proof relating to the matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like” (CPL 200.70 [1]), an indictment may not “be amended for the purpose of curing . . . [a] failure thereof to charge or state an offense[] or . . . [l]egal insufficiency of the factual allegations” (CPL 200.70 [2] [a], [b] … ). Here, inasmuch as the first five counts of the indictment charged defendant with offenses that required the victim to be less than 17 years old, such counts suffered from the same jurisdictional defect as the superior court information in that they failed to allege a crime by stating that the victim’s date of birth was June 2, 1999 — making the victim 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense on November 13, 2016. As such, County Court had no authority to grant the People’s application to amend those counts, “regardless of any consistency with the People’s theory before the grand jury” or lack of prejudice to defendant … . People v Solomon, 2022 NY Slip Op 02158, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: If an element of the crime is that the victim is less than 17, and the indictment and the superior court information have the wrong birth date which puts the victim’s age at more than 17, the indictment and the superior court information are jurisdictionally defective and cannot be amended.

 

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCORDED ANY WEIGHT TO AN OFF-THE-RECORD “CONDITION” THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD WITHDRAW THEIR CONSENT TO THE PLEA OFFER IF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WERE GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE CAN BARGAIN FOR SUCH A CONDITION, THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE RECORD ABOUT IT; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTORS FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the sentence and remitting the matter, determined County Court failed to consider the relevant factors for adjudicating defendant a youthful offender. Instead the court did not consider the issue at all based on its understanding the People would withdraw their consent to the  plea offer if youthful offender status were granted. Although the People may bargain for the right to withdraw consent to the plea agreement is youthful offender treatment is granted, there was no such condition on the record here:

“[I]t is a settled rule of law in this [s]tate that off-the-record promises made in the plea bargaining process will not be recognized where they are flatly contradicted by the record, either by the existence of some on-the-record promise whose terms are inconsistent with those later urged or by the placement on the record of a statement by the pleading defendant that no other promises have been made to induce his [or her] guilty plea” … . The plea proceedings here were devoid of any indication that the People conditioned their consent to the plea agreement upon defendant not receiving youthful offender treatment or that defendant understood such a condition to be part of the agreement, and defendant stated during the plea colloquy that no off-the-record promises had been made to induce his guilty plea. The People further failed to reference their purported right to withdraw consent to the plea agreement when they addressed the question of youthful offender treatment at sentencing. The alleged off-the-record arrangement was unenforceable given those circumstances and, as such, “County Court should not have accorded any weight to” it … .

… County Court found that defendant was an “eligible youth” for purposes of youthful offender status (CPL 720.10 [2], [3]), the court was obliged to consider the relevant factors and determine whether it would, as a discretionary matter, adjudicate him to be a youthful offender … . People v Irizarry, 2022 NY Slip Op 02159, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here County Court did not consider the factors for adjudicating whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status based upon on an off-the-record “condition,” i.e., that the People would withdraw their consent to the plea offer if the defendant were granted youthful offender status. Although the People can bargain for such a condition, there was nothing on the record about it. Therefore the judge should not have given it any weight and should have considered the factors for a youthful offender adjudication.

 

,

THE “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE GRANDPARENTS APPLIED ONLY TO FATHER AND NOT AT ALL TO MOTHER; FOR THAT REASON THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the grandparents’ petition for custody of the child should not have been granted. Father has a criminal history and has been incarcerated. He was arrested with the child and drug paraphernalia in his car, where he was found asleep. Mother has no criminal history and no drug problems. The “special circumstances” which may have supported granting custody to the grandparents related only to father, not al all to mother. Therefore the grandparents’ petition should have been denied:

The record reflects that the child was not subject to surrender, abandonment or persistent neglect nor is the mother unfit. Although the father was the subject of an indicated report relative to the incident when he fell asleep in his vehicle with drug paraphernalia near the child, a finding of neglect was not indicated as to the mother. Moreover, this was an isolated incident and not part of a pattern of persistent neglect. Although there was evidence that the father has a history of drug abuse and criminal convictions, the mother has neither. There was no evidence that the child was at risk of being harmed while in the mother’s care; instead, the record demonstrates that the mother provided appropriate shelter, clothing, food and medical attention to the child. Additionally, the mother did not allow the father to have contact with the child in accordance with Family Court’s orders. As Family Court found that the grandparents did not meet their burden on extraordinary circumstances as to the mother, the court erred in engaging in a best interests analysis and, instead, the custody petition should have been dismissed … . Matter of Anne MM. v Vasiliki NN, 2022 NY Slip Op 02161, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here “special circumstances” which may have supported granting the grandparents’ petition for custody of the child with respect to father, did not apply at all to mother. Family Court should not have proceeded with a “best interests” analysis and should have denied the petition.

 

 

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