You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE STATUTORY FACTORS SUPPORTING ITS DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE FORMER INMATE TO WORK AS A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER; THEREFORE THE DENIAL WAS ARBITRARY; MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS’s) denial of petitioner’s application for a certificate of good conduct (CGC) was not supported by the agency’s cursory rulings, rendering the denial arbitrary and requiring remittal for further proceedings. Petitioner, a former inmate with a sexual-offense conviction, sought the certificate of good standing in order to work as a school bus driver:

… [T]he challenged determination is a form letter with blanks to be filled in, and the Assistant Commissioner made no effort to explain his reasoning beyond checking a box next to a sentence stating that petitioner’s application was being denied because “[t]he relief to be granted by the [CGC] is inconsistent with public interest.” There is no question that such a “cursory letter decision,” which mentions only one of the statutory factors set forth in Correction Law § 703-b and offers no discussion of the “grounds for the denial[,] precludes meaningful review of the rationality of the decision” … .

… Correction Law article 23 requires more than a naked reliance on the crime of conviction, and the Assistant Commissioner’s affidavit … reflects that DOCCS “failed to comply with the statute and acted in an arbitrary manner” … . Although the record contains other information regarding the circumstances of petitioner’s conviction and his subsequent history that might render the denial of his application rational, a “court is powerless to sanction the determination by substituting what it deems a more appropriate or proper basis” … . Matter of Streety v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 02170, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: If an administrative agency issues a ruling which does adequately explain the statutory factors upon which the ruling is based, making a review of the bases of the ruling impossible, the ruling may be characterized as “arbitrary” and annulled.

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VAPING ASSOCIATION PREVAILED IN ITS ACTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S REGULATIONS BANNING FLAVORED VAPING LIQUIDS, THE DEPARTMENT’S ACTION WAS “SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED;” THEREFORE THE VAPING ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent Public Health and Planning Council (within the NYS Department of Health) (the council) should not have been ordered to pay attorney’s fees to petitioner Vapor Technology Association (the vaping association) pursuant to the State Equal Access to Justice Act. The respondent council had adopted emergency regulations prohibiting flavored vaping liquids targeting young people. The petitioner vaping association brought a combined Article 78 and declaratory judgment action challenging the emergency regulations as exceeding the council’s regulatory authority. The Third Department granted the vaping association’s request for a temporary restraining order and Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction. The matter was rendered moot when the legislature banned the sale of the flavored electronic cigarette products. Because the vaping association had prevailed prior to the legislature’s prohibition, it sought and was awarded attorney’s fees:

CPLR 8601 (a) “mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … . * * *

Petitioners capably disputed respondents’ arguments and obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the emergency regulations, but a grant of temporary injunctive relief is not “an adjudication on the merits,” and we need not decide who would have prevailed had this matter proceeded to a final judgment … .. Upon our review, we are satisfied that respondents articulated a reasonable factual and legal basis for their arguments that the Council and the Commissioner acted within their rule-making authority by adopting the emergency regulations … . Thus, Supreme Court abused its discretion in finding that those arguments were not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a), and petitioners were not entitled to an award of counsel fees and expenses as a result … .Matter of Vapor Tech. Assn. v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 02171, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Even though a party which prevails against a state agency is generally entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to the State Equal Access to Justice Act, if the agency’s actions are deemed “substantially justified” attorney’s fees will not be awarded. Here the Department of Health’s adoption of emergency regulations banning the sale of flavored vaping liquids (targeting young people as a market) was deemed “substantially justified” by the appellate court. The award of attorney’s fees by Supreme Court was reversed.

 

, , ,

THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the wife was entitled to maintenance in this divorce proceeding. The parties had been married for 44 years. The wife’s income was around $31,000 and the husband’s income was around $117,000. Both were retired. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court did not give any indication of its rationale for rejecting the wife’s application and adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“The amount and duration of a maintenance award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed provided that the statutory factors and the parties’ predivorce standard of living are considered” … .. “The court need not articulate every factor it considers, but it must provide a reasoned analysis of the factors it ultimately relies upon in awarding or declining to award maintenance” … .

Supreme Court wholly adopted verbatim the husband’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, without articulating the factors it considered or providing a reasoned analysis for its rulings on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. “[F]indings of fact submitted pursuant to CPLR 4213 (a) cannot constitute the decision of the court [as] mandated by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g)” … . Although Supreme Court failed to set forth its rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance, “because our authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, we need not remit this issue” … . Louie v Louie, 2022 NY Slip Op 02172, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce proceeding the judge did not give any indication of the rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance and wholly adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of fact cannot constitute a court’s decision. Rather than remitting the matter, the Third Department awarded maintenance.

 

,

PETITIONER STARTED PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE EXECUTOR’S HANDLING OF DECEDENT’S ASSETS IN SURROGATE’S COURT; AFTER RELIEF WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER STARTED SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT, A COURT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION; THE EXECUTOR’S MOTION TO TRANSFER THAT PROCEEDING TO SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that Surrogate’s Court, not Supreme Court, was the proper forum for this proceeding concerning respondent-executor’s handling of decedent’s assets. Both respondent and petitioner are decedent’s children. Petitioner had commenced proceedings in Surrogate’s Court, and, after the requested relief was denied without prejudice, petitioner commenced a similar proceeding in Supreme Court:

“Supreme Court and . . . Surrogate’s Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters involving decedents’ estates” … . Generally, where courts share concurrent jurisdiction, “it should continue to be exercised by that one whose process was first issued. Moreover, wherever possible, all litigation involving the property and funds of a decedent’s estate should be disposed of in . . . Surrogate’s Court” … . Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to transfer to Surrogate’s Court will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion … . * * *

Petitioner challenges the propriety of transactions allegedly made in breach of respondent’s fiduciary duty to decedent while decedent was alive, involving assets that would have become part of decedent’s estate. This matter falls squarely within the purview of Surrogate’s Court … . Since “all the relief requested may be obtained in . . . Surrogate’s Court and . . . Surrogate’s Court has already acted,” we find that Supreme Court should have granted respondent’s motion seeking to transfer the proceeding … . Matter of McNeil v McNeil, 2022 NY Slip Op 02173, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Surrogate’s Court and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction. Here a matter concerning the executor’s handling of decedent’s assets was commenced in Surrogate’s Court, and after relief was denied there, a second similar matter was commenced in Supreme Court. The executor’s motion to transfer the second proceeding to Surrogate’s Court should have been granted.

 

,

THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER ENTERED A POSTADOPTION CONTACT AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWED TWO SUPERVISED VISITS WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER PER YEAR; THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR AFTER VISITING WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER SUPPORTED FAMILY COURT’S CONCLUSION IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO TERMINATE VISITATION WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF THE DAUGHTER’S, IN CONTRAST TO THE SON’S, POST-VISIT BEHAVIOR DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF VISITATION WITH THE DAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined Family Court properly terminated the biological mother’s visitation with her children who had been adopted. The biological mother and the adoptive mother had entered a postadoption contact agreement which allowed the biological mother two supervised visits per year with her son and daughter. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the son’s behavior changed drastically after visits. His behavior was characterized as “out of control.” There was evidence the daughter began banging her head and had nightmares after a visit. The dissent argued the evidence supported termination of visits with the son, but did not support the termination of visits with the daughter:

The adoptive mother testified that after visiting the biological mother in December 2017, the son destroyed rooms in the house and was completely out of control for close to a month. After the July 2018 visit with the biological mother, the son “climb[ed] the walls in [his] classroom,” hit his friend, hurt his sister and had difficulties regulating his behavior for several months. * * *

With respect to the dissent’s reference to the policy concerns underlying postadoption contact agreements, we note that we wholeheartedly embrace and promote the policies and goals of these types of agreements and encourage open adoptions. However, it is not our intention to address the underlying policies of postadoption contact agreements, but, instead, to focus solely upon the principle governing and guiding the initiation and continuation of open contact between the children and the biological parent — the best interests of the children. Here, it is uncontroverted that the daughter displayed a persistent pattern of bizarre and harmful behavior — head banging and disrupted sleep due to nightmares — commensurate with visits with her biological mother. These behaviors continued for 1½ years. Although the daughter did not display the behaviors at the time of the visits, a time when the adoptive parents were present and the daughter’s attention was directed toward other activities, the behaviors were manifested subsequent to each visit. … [W]e cannot agree that enforcing visitation with respect to one sibling but not the other serves the best interests of either. Matter of Jennifer JJ. v Jessica JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02043, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: The postadoption contact agreement allowing the biological mother to visit her children after adoption was properly terminated by the court because the evidence of the children’s post-visit behavior supported the conclusion continued visitation was not in the best interests of the children.

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the attorney for the child (AFC) in the instant custody matter, who, as a judge, had presided over another custody case involving mother and different children, was not subject to automatic disqualification:

Various factual circumstances exist where disqualification of an attorney under Judiciary Law § 17 has been found. * * *

… [T]he custody case noted by the mother neither involved the subject children nor the subject children’s father] Rather, it was an entirely separate proceeding involving different children and a different father. Furthermore, the mother does not allege any factual ties between these underlying proceedings and the prior custody case … . Indeed, the only common tie between them is that the mother was a litigant. … [O]nly the mother, and not her present custody claim over the subject children, had been before the AFC during his tenure as a judge.

… [T]he mother’s fitness as the custodial parent presumably was an issue presented in her prior custody case. It is also an issue present here. Equating a discrete issue with a “matter” provided in Judiciary Law § 17, however, impermissibly stretches the meaning of “matter” such that it does not comport with “action, claim, . . . motion or proceeding” — the other terms in Judiciary Law § 17 … . … [I]n view of the jurisdiction of Family Court and the particular cases such court hears, a party’s fitness as a custodial parent frequently arises as an issue whether directly or indirectly. By giving an expansive view to “matter,” the AFC, a former Family Court judge who had presided over countless proceedings in the past, would be disqualified from representing any party in any future case where another party in such case was previously before the AFC in one of those past proceedings — a result that would occur without regard to the nature of either the past proceeding or future case. Matter of Corey O. v Angela P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02044, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: The fact that the attorney for the child (AFC) in this custody case presided, as a judge, over another custody case involving mother, but involving different children and a different father, did not require automatic disqualification of the AFC pursuant to Judiciary Law section 17.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SEX-OFFENSE CASE, THE SENTENCING JUDGE VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLACING THE REASONS FOR NONDISCLOSURE ON THE RECORD; THE ISSUE SURVIVED THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing before a different judge, determined the sentencing judge who reviewed the victim impact statement in this sexual-offense case, and who granted the victim’s request to keep the victim impact statement confidential, violated CPL 390.50, which requires the judge to state the reasons, on the record, for not disclosing a victim impact statement to the defendant. The issue survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

… [W]e find that defendant’s CPL 390.50 (2) (a) argument must survive the waiver of appeal as the Legislature has, without qualification or restriction, expressly mandated that “[t]he action of the court excepting information from disclosure shall be subject to appellate review” (CPL 390.50 [2] [a]), and courts “may not create a limitation that the Legislature did not enact” … . …

… [T]he record before us does not reflect any ruling by County Court with respect to the victim’s request to except her statement from disclosure. We therefore must conclude that the court failed to set forth “the reasons for its action” on the record, in violation of CPL 390.50 (2) (a) … . The record also does not reflect that any consideration was given to redacting the victim’s statement, leaving defendant wholly “unable to verify the accuracy of the information [therein] or meaningfully respond to it,” in further contravention of the statute … . What is clear, however, is that defendant never had the opportunity to review the victim’s statement and that County Court heavily relied upon it in fashioning its sentence. People v Ortiz, 2022 NY Slip Op 02041, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: If a sentencing judge wishes to withhold a victim impact statement from the defendant, the reasons for nondisclosure must be placed on the record (CPL 390.50). This issue survives a waiver of appeal.

 

,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this ice slip and fall case did not eliminate questions of fact about whether they had constructive notice of the icy condition:

Supreme Court found that plaintiffs’ testimony, submitted by defendants, showed that the allegedly dangerous condition “was neither visible nor had it existed for a significant period of time,” and “plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence to prove . . . constructive notice.” Although [plaintiff] testified that the parking lot appeared wet, not icy, when viewed from her husband’s truck, she also stated that she saw the ice once she had fallen; further, the affidavit of a witness states that “[t]he ice in the parking lot that morning was clearly visible.” Thus, the record contains conflicting accounts as to the visibility of the ice. “When considering a summary judgment motion, courts must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and accord that party the benefit of every reasonable inference from the record proof, without making any credibility determinations” … . Applying this standard, we find a triable issue of fact as to constructive notice. Carpenter v Nigro Cos., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01857, Third Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence of constructive notice of a dangerous condition, here whether the ice which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was visible, summary judgment is not appropriate.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT VALID; THE COURT’S TERSE INQUIRY ABOUT THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS NOT CURED BY DEFENDANT’S EXECUTION OF A MORE DETAILED WRITTEN WAIVER AFTER SHE WAS SENTENCED AND MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed defendant’s conviction but noted that the waiver of appeal was not valid:

The record reflects that County Court failed to explain the separate and distinct nature of the appeal waiver to defendant, and the court’s terse inquiry, wherein defendant was asked, “Do you understand that as part of this disposition, you’re agreeing to waive your right to appeal” and that “normally . . . you have the right to appeal your plea and your sentence,” was insufficient to ensure that defendant appreciated the nature and consequences of the rights that she was relinquishing … . Further, despite defendant’s execution of a more detailed written waiver, such was executed after she was sentenced and more than a year after the plea was entered … .. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right to appeal … . People v Crispell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01843, Third Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: The court did not explain the separate and distinct nature of an appeal waiver, as opposed to the waiver of the right to a trial. The inadequacy of the court’s explanation was not cured by the more detailed written waiver which was executed after defendant was sentenced and more than a year after the plea.

 

,

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SPELLS OUT THE ONLY GROUNDS FOR APPEAL IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING; NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO CORRECT, AMEND OR SETTLE THE SENTENCING TRANSCRIPT; AND NO APPEAL LIES FROM ADDING A MANDATORY SURCHARGE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF A SENTENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined no appeal lies from an order denying defendant’s motion to correct, amend or settle the sentencing transcript or from an order adding the mandatory surcharge:

As a general rule, “no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless one is provided by the CPL, [which] exclusively provides for rights to appeal in criminal matters” … .A defendant’s right to appeal to this Court in a criminal case is “strictly limited to those authorized by statute” … . The … order denying defendant’s motion to correct, amend or settle the sentencing transcript and the uniform sentence and commitment form and adding the mandatory surcharge does not fit within the statutory authorization for appeals by a defendant as of right to this Court (see CPL 450.10 …). Defendant’s reliance on case law involving the correction of trial records on direct appeals from judgments of conviction is misplaced, given that this appeal is not from the judgment of conviction, which was previously affirmed on appeal (303 AD2d at 830).

With regard to the mandatory surcharge, although it should be “levied at sentencing” (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a]), it is not part of the sentence that must be pronounced at the sentencing proceeding … . As such, that part of County Court’s order amending the uniform sentence and commitment form by adding the mandatory surcharge did not constitute the imposition of a sentence or a modification of the sentence so as to authorize defendant’s appeal therefrom (see CPL 450.10). People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 01844, Third Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: The Criminal Procedure Law lays out all the allowed grounds for appeal in a criminal case. The denial of a motion to correct, amend or settle a sentencing transcript is not appealable. The adding of a mandatory surcharge is not part of a sentence and therefore is not appealable.

 

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