You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

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.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER WAIVED ITS OWN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION, THE EMPLOYER RAISED SPECIFIC, SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMANT’S ORTHOPEDIST’S PERMANENCY FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE ALLEGATIONS THE ORTHOPEDIST DID NOT COMPLETELY REVIEW THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND DID NOT FOLLOW THE RELEVANT GUIDELINES; THE BOARD’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board and remitting the matter, determined the board should have addressed the employer’s specific objections to the permanency findings of claimant’s orthopedist (Capiola), even though the employer did not produce its own independent medical report:

Upon administrative review, the employer renewed its objections that the credibility of the medical opinion was not based on a complete review of claimant’s medical records, that claimant had not reached MMI [maximum medical improvement], that the guidelines were not followed in rendering the medical opinion and that there was inconsistency between claimant’s medical condition and his physical restrictions. …

In its decision, the Board sets forth in detail the parties’ opposing positions and then adopted the findings and decision of the WCLJ [Workers’ Compensation Law Judge]. Neither the decision of the Board nor that of the WCLJ sets forth any reasoning or analysis of the substantive issues raised by the employer. Although there was no opposing medical opinion and the Board “may not reject an uncontradicted opinion that is properly rendered” … , the issues raised by the employer in its application for review challenged the propriety and reliability of Capiola’s permanency findings. The Board’s failure to specifically address the claims raised by the employer “depriv[ed] the employer . . . of the opportunity to have the Board consider the merits of . . . issue[s] that [were] properly preserved” and precludes any meaningful review by this Court … . Matter of Ippolito v NYC Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01493, Third Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: Even though the employer waived the production of its own independent medical examination in this Workers’ Compensation case, the Workers’ Compensation Board should have considered the employer’s substantive objections to the permanency findings of the claimant’s orthopedist, including allegations the orthopedist did not review all the medical records and did not follow the relevant guidelines.

 

,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board in this hearing-loss case, determined the carrier’s expert’s (Arick’s) failure to include the audiogram (hearing test) with the independent medical examination (IME) record required that the expert’s evidence be precluded. There was precedent to that effect and the board did not explain its departure from precedent:

Arick could not explain during his testimony, however, why a copy of his audiogram was neither provided with his IME report nor present in the Board’s file, and claimant’s counsel continued to raise this point during the hearing, on administrative appeal to the Board and now again before this Court. As claimant argues, the Board has previously determined that where an audiogram test providing the basis for a physician’s SLU [schedule loss of use] finding does not accompany the IME report and is not submitted to the Board file, that physician’s IME report and findings must be precluded … . …

The Board failed to address claimant’s contention regarding the omission of Arick’s audiogram from his IME and the record and, as such, has not provided a rational explanation for departing from its prior decision requiring that an audiogram be submitted to the Board with the IME report (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 [1] [a]; 12 NYCRR 300.2 [d] [4] [iii], [iv]; [12]). Inasmuch as the Board has not provided a rational basis for departing from its own precedent, its decision must be reversed … . Matter of Cala v PAL Envtl. Safety Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01498, Third Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: If the Workers’ Compensation Board departs from its own precedent without explanation, the determination will be reversed.

 

, ,

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE OWNERS OF RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE DEFENDANT VILLAGE ALLEGING, AMONG OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION, VIOLATIONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE VILLAGE “NUISANCE LAW” WHICH WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT INFRINGED ON THE TENANTS’ RIGHT TO CALL THE POLICE (“NUISANCE POINTS” WERE ASSESSED FOR CALLS TO THE POLICE); THE ACTION BY THE RENTAL-PROPERTY OWNERS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of this action brought by owners of rental properties in the defendant village asserting, among other causes of action, violations of their constitutional rights stemming from a local law (Nuisance Law) which was declared unconstitutional:

… [This court] declar[ed] that the Nuisance Law was “overbroad and facially invalid under the First Amendment” … . As to the finding of facial invalidity under the First Amendment, this Court held that, because the Nuisance Law did not prohibit the assessment of nuisance points against a property for police involvement thereat, the law violated the right of plaintiffs’ tenants to petition the government for redress of grievances by deterring them from calling the police in response to crimes committed at their properties … . * * *

… Supreme Court properly dismissed the first cause of action for malicious prosecution. * * *

As for the First Amendment claim, Supreme Court found …that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their tenants’ constitutional rights. * * *

With respect to the selective enforcement claim, nothing in the record suggests that plaintiffs were singled out for enforcement of the Nuisance Law due to the population of tenants to which they rented — i.e., individuals whose rent was paid by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services. * * *

… [P]laintiffs’ due process claim, to the extent based upon defendants’ alleged failure to follow the procedures set forth in the Nuisance Law, is not actionable. Pirro v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Groton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01358, Third Dept 3-3-22

 

, ,

CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).

The Third Department, over two partial dissents, determined the FOIL request for certain documents relating to the training and procedures of the Board of Parole was properly denied as protected by the attorney-client privilege:

“[T]he attorney-client privilege protects communications between an attorney and his or her client that convey facts relevant to a legal issue under consideration, even if the information contained in the communication is not privileged” … . Regarding the minor offenders memoranda, these documents … were created by counsel and contain legal advice to the Board regarding the state of law and how the Board should conduct interviews in accord with such law. The court-decisions handouts likewise provide counsel’s summary, view and impression of recent case law to the Board. Similarly, the presentation slides and the parole interviews and decision-making handout discuss various legal standards and regulations and, as the Board’s counsel noted, were provided to the Board so it could understand the requirements imposed by them and how it can comply with them. As to the remaining documents — handouts concerning Board interviews, sample decision language concerning departure from COMPAS [Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions] and hypothetical Board decisions — they also involve legal advice as to how to reach decisions on parole matters so as to be in compliance with applicable regulations…. .

From the two partial dissents:

… [M]any of the documents contain sections that are devoted solely to informing the Board of Parole of its duly codified statutory and regulatory duties in rendering parole determinations, without any fact-specific discussions or legal advice on how to apply the law to particular scenarios. Although these documents were prepared by attorneys in the course of a professional relationship, the general legal principles outlined therein are not confidential … * * *

… I disagree with the majority because it is my opinion that the proper basis to withhold these documents is the intra-agency exemption, rather than the attorney-client privilege exemption. Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 01354, Third Dept 3-3-22

 

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