You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the public nuisance and negligence causes of action stemming from odors from a landfill should have been dismissed. The public nuisance cause of action alleged only injury to the public at large, not the required special injury unique to the parties. The negligence cause of action did not allege any tangible property damage or physical injury:

… [P]laintiffs here have not asserted an injury that is different in kind from the relevant community at large, which, in our view, consists of the other homeowners and renters impacted by the landfill’s odors … . * * *

To recover in negligence, a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct … . …

… [T]he noxious odors at issue are transient in nature and do not have a continuing physical presence. … [P]laintiffs have not alleged any tangible property damage or physical injury resulting from exposure to the odors. … [T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of plaintiffs’ property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law … . Davies v S.A. Dunn & Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05751, Third Dept 10-21-21

Similar issues and result in Duncan v Capital Region Landfills, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05757, Third Dept 10-21-21

​

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS ABANDONMENT CLAIMS IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING; PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner (Department of Social Services) did not meet its burden of proof on whether respondent had abandoned the child in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding:

“A finding of abandonment is warranted when it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to visit or communicate with the child or the petitioning agency during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the abandonment petition, although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by petitioner” ( … see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a] …). It is presumed that a parent has the ability to visit and/or communicate with his or her child and, therefore, “[o]nce the petitioning agency establishes that the parent failed to maintain contact with his or her child, the burden shifts to the parent to prove an inability to maintain contact or that he or she was prevented or discouraged from doing so by the petitioning agency” … . …

The caseworker… only observed two … visitations, each for only a limited period of time, during which she acknowledged that respondent brought snacks for the child. Respondent was otherwise precluded from making any other attempts to contact the child — i.e., telephone calls — outside of her scheduled supervised parenting time. The caseworker … acknowledged that … respondent was hospitalized with an injury that required emergency brain surgery, which prevented her from exercising one of her scheduled visitations that month, and respondent subsequently executed a medical release so that petitioner could verify same. … [A]lthough the caseworker initially indicated that she had not had any contact with respondent since May 2019, during cross-examination she indicated that respondent had, in fact, called her one or two times during the relevant time period. Matter of Khavonye FF. (Latasha EE.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05753, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE ACTION WITHOUT DISCOVERY AND TRIAL; THE COURT SHOULD ONLY HAVE DECIDED WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter to a different judge, determined this breach-of-contract/preliminary-injunction/declaratory-judgment/Article-78 proceeding should not have been decided on the merits without discovery, the filing of a note of issue and a trial. The court should have decided only whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Petitioner is a contractor hired by respondents to install a water system for snow-making for ski trails. Respondents terminated the contract for cause and petitioner brought an action for a preliminary injunction (prohibiting respondents from awarding the contract to others without competitive bidding), a declaratory judgment, and breach of contract:

… Supreme Court should have confined … its determination to whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. … Supreme Court prematurely resolved the merits of petitioner’s declaratory judgment cause of action and respondents’ counterclaims, without first affording the parties their rights to discovery and a jury trial on the claims/counterclaims raised in the plenary action (see CPLR 3103 [a]; 4101 …), and without a note of issue and certificate of readiness having been filed. Moreover, Supreme Court did not acknowledge or address petitioner’s third cause of action for breach of contract, even though the plenary action involves, at its heart, a contract dispute. Although petitioner also asserted a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, the award of declaratory relief hinges on the resolution of the contract dispute — that is, whether respondents wrongfully terminated the contract for cause under the terms of the contract. Matter of Murnane Bldg. Contrs., Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 05756, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

THE 2012 SENTENCE IMPOSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; THEREFORE A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND IS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined the defendant’s motion to vacate his 2012 conviction because the sentencing court did not consider whether he should be afforded youthful offender status should not have been granted. At the time the law was changed to require consideration of youthful offender status the defendant’s case was not on appeal and the law-change was not made retroactive such that it could be considered in a collateral proceeding (motion to vacate):​

… [T]his appeal does not concern the legality of the sentence imposed after a determination had been made whether a defendant should or should not be accorded youthful offender status or, indeed, the legality of any aspect of defendant’s 2012 sentence. Rather, the appeal centers on the failure to determine, in 2012, whether defendant should have been given youthful offender status — a finding that ultimately goes to the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, … CPL 440.20 — a statute that empowers a court to set aside an unauthorized, illegal or invalid sentence — does not authorize the relief granted by Supreme Court … . …

… [I]n limiting the application of the new interpretation of CPL 720.20 (1) to “cases still on direct review,” the Court of Appeals expressly indicated that it was not available to permit “collateral attacks on sentences that have already become final” (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 502). Thus, as a result of the Rudolph decision, convicted defendants gained the right to argue on direct appeal their entitlement to a resentencing at which the court will make a youthful offender determination. The Rudolph decision, however, did not authorize that relief in a collateral proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.20. In foreclosing retroactive application of the new rule announced in Rudolph to collateral proceedings, the Court of Appeals necessarily rejected the view that sentences imposed under its prior precedent were illegal, unauthorized or invalid. People v Vanderhorst, 2021 NY Slip Op 05141, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

, ,

THE PURCHASE OF A CHECK CASHING BUSINESS DID NOT TRANSFER THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER TO THE PURCHASER; THE LABOR LAW 581 CRITERIA FOR THE TRANSFER OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS WERE NOT MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined the unemployment insurance obligations of PTL Check Cashing Corp. were not transferred to PLS Check Cashiers of New York Inc. when PLS entered an asset purchase agreement with PTL in order to acquire PTL’s license to operate at PTL’s former location in the Bronx:

“Labor Law § 581 establishes an experience-rating system that allows for variations in the unemployment insurance contribution rates from the standard rate of qualified employers in certain situations” … . Under the statute, when a business is transferred either whole or in part from one employer to another, the transferee shall take over and continue the unemployment insurance experience account of the transferor … . A transfer, however, will not be deemed to have occurred if (1) the transferee has not assumed any of the transferor’s obligations, (2) the transferee has not acquired any of the transferor’s goodwill, (3) the transferee has not continued or resumed the transferor’s business either in the same establishment or elsewhere, and (4) the transferee has not employed substantially the same employees as those of the transferor … . …

It is undisputed that PLS did not assume any of PTL’s financial obligations and did not hire any of its employees. Moreover, while PLS operated from the same Bronx location, its business included a variety of financial services and was not limited to check cashing, which was PTL’s sole business. Significantly, the ability to operate from the Bronx location was necessary in order for PLS to obtain a license from the Department of Financial Services given the geographic limitations applicable to businesses that offer check cashing services. Although the asset purchase agreement listed other property included in the sale, PLS’s president testified that the tangible assets were disposed of and the only asset that was of value was the opportunity to acquire the license to operate from the Bronx location. Notwithstanding the fact that goodwill was generally referenced as property included in the sale, PLS did not use PTL’s brand, logo or phone number and had its own customer base, negating any expectation that it would be patronized by PTL’s customers. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that a transfer of business occurred under Labor Law § 581 (4) such that PLS acquired the unemployment insurance experience rating of PTL … . Matter of PLS Check Cashiers of N.Y. Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05142, Third Dept 9-30-29

 

, ,

THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MINORITY AND WOMEN’S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING BEFORE AN ADMINSTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WHICH DEMONSTRATED PETITIONER MET THE CRITERIA FOR A WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination of the Division of Minority and Women’s Business Development of the Department of Economic Development (the Division), found the petitioner had demonstrated it met the criteria for certification as a woman-owned business enterprise (WBE). In its contrary ruling, the Division erroneously ignored the evidence presented at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) which had ruled in favor of the petitioner:

Petitioner contends that the determination should be annulled because the Director refused to consider the testimonial evidence introduced at the administrative hearing in assessing the regulatory factors, and we agree. … [F]ollowing a determination denying an application for certification as a WBE, the applicant is, upon written request, entitled to an administrative hearing before an independent hearing officer … . The hearing officer must thereafter conduct the hearing based upon the information included in the request for a hearing as it relates to the information that was provided by the applicant with its certification application, and each party must be accorded a full opportunity to present evidence, including calling witnesses and cross-examining other parties and their witnesses … . The hearing officer may also “request additional information and take other actions necessary to make an informed decision” … , which ultimately must be based upon his or her “consideration of the record as a whole or such portion thereof as may be cited by any party to the proceeding and as supported by and in accordance with substantial evidence” … .

The proof adduced at the administrative hearing was highly relevant to the issue of whether petitioner met the criteria for WBE certification. Matter of Scherzi Sys., LLC v White, 2021 NY Slip Op 05143, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

, ,

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB) WHICH FOUND THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY FAILED TO NEGOTIATE BEFORE UNILATERALLY IMPOSING A SALARY REDUCTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), determined the city did not fulfill its obligation to negotiate a change in salary for its firefighters:

PERB acknowledged petitioners’ claims that the City made a unilateral determination to end the past practice of paying night differential, check-in pay and holiday pay in calculating regular wages and benefits to current employees should they receive General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits in the future, but rejected those contentions upon the ground that petitioners had only documented the City’s intent to discontinue those payments with regard to retirees to whom it owed no duty to bargain. … The parties … orally stipulated at the hearing … that “those affected [by the City’s unilateral change in benefits] are those in the unit as of the alleged unilateral change,” necessarily referring to current employees who are members of the bargaining units rather than the retirees who are not … . The parties later reinforced that point by stipulating that the unilateral change was made “in a uniform[] fashion to all members of both bargaining units,” again using language necessarily referring to current employees to whom the City owes a duty to bargain. In the absence of any indication that counsel lacked authority to enter into those unambiguous factual stipulations or that some cause sufficient to invalidate a contract existed for setting the stipulations aside, they are binding  … . Thus, as the parties stipulated that the City’s unilateral actions impacted current employees in the bargaining units, PERB’s finding that the record was barren of proof on that point is not supported by substantial evidence, and it follows that PERB’s determination must be annulled … . Matter of Uniformed Fire Officers Assn. of the City of Yonkers v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2021 NY Slip Op 05144, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

PETITIONER-POLICE-OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE WAS A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT UNDER THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW BECAUSE THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WERE SUCH THAT THE PRESENCE OF BLACK ICE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the hearing officer’s ruling, determined the petitioner-police-officer’s slip and fall on black ice was a compensable “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law:

Petitioner testified that, while patrolling his assigned area on the evening in question, he observed a group of youths congregating in a local parking lot. Consistent with his patrol duties, petitioner pulled into what he described as the poorly illuminated parking lot with the intention of instructing the group to disperse. As petitioner exited his vehicle, he slipped on what he later described as black ice and sustained injuries. Petitioner testified that, although it was cold and blustery at the time of his fall, it was not raining or snowing, and he did not recall any precipitation occurring in the days prior to the incident. As petitioner was focused on “[o]bserving the scene,” he also did not recall looking down at the surface of the parking lot prior to exiting his patrol vehicle. * * *

Absent some indication of meteorological conditions that would be amenable to the presence or formation of black ice, respondent’s determination — that petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the slippery condition that he encountered at the time of his fall — is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Castellano v DiNapoli, 2021 NY Slip Op 05148, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

, ,

THE SENTENCE AGREED TO IN THE PLEA BARGAIN AND IMPOSED BY THE COURT WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS LESS THAN STATUTORILY REQUIRED; THE SENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s sentence was illegal because it was less than statutorily required. Because the plea agreement included the illegal sentence, the sentence was vacated and the matter was remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

Defendant had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) in 2019. Inasmuch as that conviction was within five years of the instant plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (1-a) (a) requires the additional penalty of either five days in jail or 30 days of community service. As no such penalty was imposed by the court, the sentence imposed is less than is statutorily required and, therefore, is illegal.

“Where the plea bargain includes a sentence which is illegal because the minimum imposed is less than that required by law, . . . the proper remedy is to vacate the sentence and afford the defendant, having been denied the benefit of the bargain, the opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing in accordance with the governing sentencing statute, with the opportunity for defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement … . People v Gary, 2021 NY Slip Op 05052, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAME AVAILABLE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID-PANDEMIC BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to COVID-pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits because she was not employed at the time the benefits became available:

Claimant was ineligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits given her failure to work during the relevant period and contended that she was unable and unavailable to work due to one of the qualifying factors for pandemic unemployment assistance, namely, that she was “unable to reach [her] place of employment because [she was] advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19” (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). … The statutory directive that an applicant be “unable to reach the place of employment” presupposes that he or she has a place of employment to reach, however, removing from its scope individuals such as claimant who were not working or scheduled to start working at the time they were directed to self-quarantine (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). The Board read the statutory language in that manner and in accord with guidance from the United States Department of Labor — the federal agency tasked with providing operating instructions for the joint federal-state pandemic unemployment insurance program (see 15 USC § 9032 [b]) and from which we take judicial notice — that an individual “must have an attachment to the labor market and must have experienced a loss of wages and hours or [be] unable to start employment following a bona fide job offer” in order to obtain pandemic unemployment assistance … . Thus, as “‘the federal agency expressly concurs in the state’s interpretation of the statute, and the interpretation is a permissible construction of the statute,’ the interpretation is entitled to deference,” and it follows that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance … . Matter of Mangiero (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05062, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

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