You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

PURSUANT TO A MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, THE WEAPON-POSSESSION COUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED FROM THE MENACING AND ASSAULT COUNTS, IN WHICH DISPLAY OF A WEAPON WAS ALLEGED; THE SIROIS HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE VICTIM TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY, THEREFORE THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, over a partial dissent, determined: (1) the weapon-possession count should have been severed from the assault and menacing counts under a Molineux analysis; (2) the Sirois hearing did not demonstrate that the alleged victim refused to testify because of intimidation by the defendant, therefore the victim’s grand jury testimony should not have been read to the jury; and (3) under Molineux, evidence of the defendant’s possession of marijuana and defendant’s participation in a program related to the police department’s “Crime Analysis Center” should not have been admitted:

… [B]y refusing to sever the assault and menacing charges from the weapon charge, County Court permitted highly prejudicial evidence to be placed before the jury. Proof that a handgun was recovered from defendant’s residence could lend credence to the victim’s claim that a handgun — albeit a different one — was displayed during the course of the assault and menacing. Similarly, if the jury credited the victim’s grand jury testimony relative to defendant displaying a weapon during her encounter with him, the jury could be more likely to believe that the handgun recovered from defendant’s residence did indeed belong to him.  * * *

Although the proof adduced [at the Sirois hearing] certainly established that the victim felt threatened and did not wish to testify, such proof fell short of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant — or someone acting at his behest — orchestrated the victim’s unavailability for trial. People v Bryant, 2021 NY Slip Op 07582, Third Dept 12-30-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, ADD A PARTY TO THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING; APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, add a person with whom mother had had a relationship, Rory EE, as a party in the paternity proceeding. All involved agreed Rory EE had no involvement with the child and equitable estoppel was not an issue:

… [A] court cannot, on its own initiative, add or direct the addition of a party … . Rather, the court may only summon a person who should be joined, if the court has jurisdiction over the person; if jurisdiction over the person can be obtained only by his or her consent or appearance, the court must determine whether the proceeding should be permitted to proceed in that person’s absence (see CPLR 1001 [b] …).

Family Court plainly did not have the authority to make Rory EE. a named party to this proceeding. … Family Court has also failed to obtain jurisdiction over Rory EE. No petition or summons, or supplemental summons, was filed against or served upon him … , no party has moved to add him as a necessary party and there has been no stipulation to that end (see CPLR 1003 … ), and he has not appeared before Family Court or otherwise consented to the court’s jurisdiction (see CPLR 320 [b] …). … [W]e reverse and remit for further proceedings, at which time the parties remain free to move for or stipulate to Rory EE. being added as a necessary party, or not, and, absent such a motion or stipulation, and if his joinder is deemed to be necessary, the court is limited to directing that reasonable efforts be made to join him as a party or considering whether this matter should proceed in his absence (see CPLR 1001 …). Matter of Schenectady County Dept. of Social Servs. v Noah DD., 2021 NY Slip Op 07587, Third Dept 12-30-21

 

THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIRMENT SYSTEM DID NOT REBUT THE “WORLD TRADE CENTER PRESUMPTION” THAT PETITIONER’S DEPRESSION WAS AGGRAVATED BY HIS EXPERIENCES ON 9-11; PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Comptroller, determined that the respondent New York State and Local Retirement System did not rebut the “World Trade Center presumption” that petitioner’s depression was aggravated by his experiences on 9-11:

Recognizing that there is no objective laboratory test to diagnose a mental health disorder like depression, if Fayer [respondent’s expert] was going to assert as fact that there are definitive biological reasons for petitioner’s qualifying condition — and that his depression would have reached the point of disability no matter the circumstances — it was incumbent upon Fayer, or the Retirement System generally, to provide some support for that far-reaching conclusion … . “Although the [World Trade Center] presumption is not a per se rule mandating enhanced accidental disability retirement benefits for first responders in all cases” … . in our view, accepting Fayer’s generalized conclusions, on their own, as adequate to rebut the statutory presumption afforded to petitioner — that his depression was in fact aggravated by his experiences on 9/11 — renders the existence of the presumption illusory. We therefore reverse the Comptroller’s finding that the Retirement System rebutted the World Trade Center presumption … . As a result, petitioner’s application for World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits must be granted (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 [g] [1] [a]). Matter of Fragola v DiNapoli, 2021 NY Slip Op 07596, Third Dept 12-30-21

 

PLAINTIFF, A NOVICE SKIER, WAS INJURED DURING A LESSON; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INSTRUCTOR UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK BY HAVING PLAINTIFF SKI DOWN AN INTERMEDIATE HILL WITHOUT ADEQUATE TRAINING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-skier’s (Bodden’s) negligence complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground she assumed the risks inherent in skiing. Plaintiff was a novice and was taking a lesson at the time she was injured. The instructor had plaintiff go down the “bunny hill” a few times and then took plaintiff to an intermediate hill. Plaintiff lost control, was unable to stop and struck a fence:

A factual dispute remains as to whether Bodden [plaintiff] expressed reservations to the instructor about whether she was ready to progress to Benson’s Glade and whether the instructor encouraged her in a manner that was overzealous under the circumstances. It is also unclear whether the instructor taught Bodden, before going on the trail, how to safely fall if she could not remain in the pizza wedge formation, and whether she yelled out to Bodden to do so after she lost control. Although Bodden conceded that she knew the risks associated with skiing and had successfully completed several runs down the bunny hill, she had limited opportunity to practice the technique that she had been taught for slowing down and stopping under real life circumstances, as the bunny hill was primarily flat and, according to Bodden, “skiers stop[ped] on their own there.” Not to be overlooked is the fact that Bodden was a novice skier and was taken on a trail designated as intermediate on the trail map. We recognize that defendants proffered an affidavit from the instructor explaining that, although Benson’s Glade is formally designated an intermediate trail, it is more akin to a beginner’s trail. Notably, however, the instructor revealed that she was aware of an area of Benson’s Glade that had a “sharper turn” and had “witnessed multiple people coming straight down and ending up in the trees” near that area. Such testimony creates a question of fact as to whether Benson’s Glade was appropriate for a novice skier such as Bodden. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we conclude that triable issues of fact exist as to whether the instructor unreasonably increased the risk of injury and whether Bodden voluntarily assumed such risk … . Bodden v Holiday Mtn. Fun Park Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07330, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, AMEND A DISMISSAL ORDER FROM “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” TO “WITH PREJUDICE” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that Family Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, amend a dismissal order from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice:”

… Family Court erred in sua sponte amending its October 13, 2020 dismissal order from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice.” Family Court may, in its discretion, correct or amend an order, so as to cure mistakes, defects or irregularities in the order that do not affect a substantial right of a party (see CPLR 5019 [a] …) or to resolve any ambiguity in the order to make it comport with what the court’s holding clearly intended … . However, in the absence of a motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) or 5015 (a), Family Court lacks the authority to issue an amended or corrected order that alters its dismissal of a petition from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice,” as such alteration is one of substance … . Matter of Brian W. v Mary X., 2021 NY Slip Op 07332, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the homeowner should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he fell 14 feet attempting to install floor joists across the foundation. The Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed pursuant to the statutory homeowner’s exemption, which was deemed applicable because defendant did not direct the plaintiff’s installation of the joists. The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed for essentially the same reason (there is no statutory homeowner’s exemption for those causes of action):

… [P]laintiff averred that he and defendant had discussions about work orders, logistics, materials and the architectural drawings, that defendant checked in with him on a daily basis, that defendant told him where to park during work hours and to lock a gate at the conclusion of the workday, that defendant changed the stairs and windows to be used for the house and changed the placement of a fireplace and that defendant moved rocks and applied tape to plywood at the construction site. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, however, this evidence does not indicate that defendant directed or controlled the manner of plaintiff’s work … . Capuzzi v Fuller, 2021 NY Slip Op 07335, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

CLAIMANT FIREFIGHTER DEMONSTRATED HIS PTSD IS RELATED TO THE HORRIFIC INJURIES AND DEATHS HE WITNESSED DOING HIS JOB; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant firefighter demonstrated his PTSD is related to the horrific injuries and deaths he witnessed doing his job:

… [W]here a firefighter “files a claim for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred in a work-related emergency, the [B]oard may not disallow the claim, upon a factual finding that the stress was not greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 [3] [b] … ). …

The record includes a … letter from claimant’s treating psychologist — Raymond Angelini — who opined that claimant was suffering from PTSD “as a result of responding to countless horrific, work-related emergency situations over the course of his career as a firefighter . . ., including but not limited to exposure to death, dismemberment, disfigurement[] and CPR regurgitation.” …

… [W]e conclude that claimant demonstrated, through competent medical evidence, a reasonable probability that his PTSD was causally related to his employment … . Matter of Reith v City of Albany, 2021 NY Slip Op 07339, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

,

THE “PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM,” ALTHOUGH REPEALED, STILL MAY BE APPLIED TO WILLS OF PERSONS WHO DIED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1964, TO PRECLUDE INHERITANCE BY ADOPTED CHILDREN IF THE ACT OF ADOPTION WAS DESIGNED TO CUT OFF OTHER BENEFICIARIES; HERE THE SHARES OF THE OTHER BENEFICIARIES WERE DIMINISHED BUT NOT CUT OFF BY THE INCLUSION OF THE ADOPTED CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the statutory (former Domestic Relations Law 117) “cautionary addendum” did not apply to exclude the adopted children of the decedent’s daughter as beneficiaries of a trust. The cautionary addendum (which, although repealed, can apply to the will of a person who died before March 1, 1964) applies only where the act of adoption cuts off a remainder interest that would have existed but for the adoption. Here the adopted children merely expanded the pool of beneficiaries, which diminished the shares of the other beneficiaries, but did not cut anyone off anyone’s interest:

“[T]he precautionary addendum was . . . designed to prevent the perpetration of fraud on the rights of remaindermen through an adoption for the very purpose of cutting out a remainder” … . …

… “[T]he precautionary addendum has not precluded an adopted child’s inheritance in cases where the adoption simply has brought a child within an existing class.” That said, the reduction of a beneficiary’s respective interest is necessarily reduced when the existing class of beneficiaries is expanded— i.e., a situation to which the precautionary addendum does not apply … . Accordingly, contrary to respondents’ view, a diminished share of an interest does not mean that the interest has been cut off so as to make the precautionary addendum applicable … . Matter of Falck, 2021 NY Slip Op 07342, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

, , ,

THE INSURER PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BOARD’S RULING THAT THE INSURER WAS THE RESPONSIBLE CARRIER WAS BASED UPON FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTATIOIN; IT WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE INSURER’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board abused its discretion when denying an insurer’s (Everest’s) application for a review of a ruling that the insurer was the responsible carrier. That ruling was plausibly argued to have been based upon fraudulent documentation:

… [T]he proof submitted by Everest in support of its administrative appeal strongly suggests that the certificate of insurance provided to the Board was not authentic, and, based upon the limited record before us, the certificate appears to have been an important, if not the only, factor in the WCLJ’s [Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s] decision as to Everest. In other words, Everest has brought to the Board’s attention the strong possibility that it has issued a decision based perhaps entirely upon fraudulent documentation. … Under these facts, “[i]t is not an adequate answer to say that this kind of determination is usually discretionary” … , and, in our view, the very purpose of the discretion afforded to the Board is to grant relief in circumstances such as these … . … [W]e find that the Board abused its discretion in denying Everest’s application for review … . Matter of Salinas v Power Servs. Solutions LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 07321, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO SET UP A VISITATION SCHEDULE TO THE CHILD AND MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court and remitting the matter for a visitation schedule, determined Family Court should not have delegated its authority by allowing the child and mother to agree to a visitation schedule:

… Family Court improperly delegated its authority to the younger child when it ordered that the mother’s visitation would be only as she and the younger child could agree.

“Generally, the best interests of a child lie in having healthy and meaningful relationships with both the custodial and noncustodial parent” … . Thus, “[u]nless [visitation] is inimical to the child[]’s welfare, the court is required to structure a schedule which results in frequent and regular access by the noncustodial parent” … . The court cannot delegate to anyone, including a child, its authority to do so … , as such delegation can have “the practical effect of denying [a parent] his [or her] right to visitation with his [or her] child indefinitely without the requisite showing that visitation would be detrimental to the child’s welfare” … . Matter of Cecelia BB. v Frank CC., 2021 NY Slip Op 07323, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

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