You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

DEFEFNDANT’S STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the statements defendant made while handcuffed were admissible because the statements were made in response to questions posed for safety reasons and not to elicit an incriminating response:

County Court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement that he made to law enforcement while being patted down. Although defendant was handcuffed, in custody and had not been advised of his Miranda rights when he was asked by Haven whether the handgun that was retrieved from his back pocket was loaded, said inquiry was not made to elicit an incriminating response, but was made for the purpose of alleviating the inherent risk of securing a potentially loaded weapon and protecting the safety of defendant, responding officers and those other individuals present during the execution of the warrant … . Accordingly, [the] question fell squarely within the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement and, therefore, suppression of defendant’s statement was appropriately denied … . People v Rashid, 2021 NY Slip Op 04390, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

, ,

THE OPENING OF A CARTON OF CIGARETTES AS PART OF A SEARCH OF THE CARGO IN PETITIONER’S TRUCK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE; THE TAX TRIBUNAL’S ASSESSMENT OF A $1,259,250 PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF CIGARETTES WITHOUT TAX STAMPS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Tax Appeals Tribunal, determined the search of petitioner’s truck which led to the discovery of cigarettes with no tax stamp was not supported by probable cause. Therefore the determination that petitioner owed a $1,259, 250 penalty was annulled:

Petitioner is a member of the Seneca Nation of Indians, a Native American tribe recognized by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. ERW Wholesale is petitioner’s tobacco wholesale business, licensed by the Seneca Nation of Indians operating on the Cattaraugus Reservation. In December 2012, ERW sold 150 cases (9,000 cartons) of Native American brand cigarettes to Oien’Kwa Trading, a Native American-owned business located on the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation. Oien’Kwa Trading immediately sold the cigarettes to Saihwahenteh, a Native American-owned business located on the Ganienkeh territory. Oien’Kwa Trading hired ERW to deliver the cigarettes directly to Saihwahenteh. Sean Snyder, an ERW employee, was employed as the truck driver. * * *

… [T]he validity of a search is subject to a two-prong test — arrest and probable cause — neither of which is satisfied here. As to the first prong, the record reveals that Snyder, the driver and sole occupant of the truck that was searched, was never arrested. With respect to probable cause, the record demonstrates a complete lack thereof. When Snyder was stopped, he was completely cooperative with the trooper and forthrightly explained that he was transporting cigarettes from a Native American reservation to a Native American territory, and he immediately gave the trooper an envelope containing the pertinent documents, namely the registration, invoices and bill of lading. Although the trooper testified that Snyder appeared nervous when he was initially pulled over, this conduct in and of itself is insufficient to justify a search … . Once back at the vehicle inspection checkpoint, Snyder readily exited his vehicle and turned his keys over to the trooper; he was never asked if the cigarettes were stamped. When the trooper employed the bolt cutters and the investigator entered the cargo area, the investigator found that the cargo was exactly as Snyder had told them — cases of cigarettes. The investigator’s search of the cargo area, including opening a case and then a carton, in order to inspect a single pack of cigarettes for a tax stamp was not precipitated by a complaint, tip, investigation or statements from Snyder, any of which might have provided probable cause. On the contrary, the investigator testified that the search proceeded only after he conferred with the trooper who believed that the cigarettes were Native American brand and, as such, were not stamped. The transportation of cigarettes from a Native American reservation to a Native American territory does not, in and of itself, give rise to a reasonable inference of criminality … . Matter of White v State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib., 2021 NY Slip Op 04394, Third Dept 7-15-21

 

,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined County Court should not have denied defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence jury instruction:

… [T]here was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the shooter or as having possessed a loaded firearm. Indeed, there was no DNA or fingerprint evidence linking defendant to the Colt .45 caliber handgun that was recovered near the scene or the shell casing and projectiles that were found to have been fired from that gun … . Further, the surveillance footage — which only distantly captured the incident — did not depict defendant with a firearm. Nor was it possible to discern from the footage who shot the victim. …

Despite denying defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge, County Court nonetheless gave a modified version of the charge. This modified version, however, was wholly inadequate. Most importantly, the modified version failed to include a critical component of the circumstantial evidence charge — namely, “‘that it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence'” … . Given that County Court improperly denied defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge and that the modified charge was insufficient, “the jury could not have known of its duty to apply the circumstantial evidence standard to the prosecution’s entire case” … . People v Taylor, 2021 NY Slip Op 04258, Third Dept 7-8-21

 

UNDER THE NEW APPELLATE PRACTICE RULES FOR CROSS-APPEALS, DEFENDANTS ABANDONED THIER APPEAL BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FILE THEIR BRIEF WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF FILING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL; THE COURT OPTED TO WAIVE DEFENDANTS’ NONCOMPLIANCE AND DEEMED THE CROSS APPEAL PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, discussed the applicability of the new practice rules for appeals to cross-appeals:

… [T]he new practice rules pertaining to cross appeals specify that “[t]he party that first perfects the appeal shall be denominated the appellant-respondent” (Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1250.9 [f] [1] [iii]). Until such time as either party has perfected, the identity of a party as either an appellant-respondent or a respondent-appellant remains to be determined. Having filed a notice of cross appeal on June 2, 2020, defendants had until December 2, 2020 to perfect their appeal or otherwise seek an extension. Defendants failed to do either. For this reason, plaintiff maintains that the cross appeal was effectively abandoned and technically plaintiff is correct. The rules, read as a whole, require each party to preserve its position until such time as one of the parties actually perfects its appeal. That said, the rules require the parties to “consult and make best efforts to stipulate to a briefing schedule” (Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1250.9 [f] [1] [i]), and there is no indication in this record or the briefs that such consultation occurred here. In any event, since this is our first decision addressing implementation of the new practice rules relating to cross appeals, we opt to waive defendants’ noncompliance and deem the cross appeal properly before us (see Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1250.1 [g]). New York Mun. Power Agency v Town of Massena, 2021 NY Slip Op 04268, Third Dept 7-8-21

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE AGREEMENT TO CONVEY A FARM TO A PARTNERSHIP WAS SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS FOR PART PERFORMANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint alleged the agreement to convey a farm to a partnership was subject to an exception to the statute of frauds for part performance:

“General Obligations Law § 5-703 (4) has carved out an exception to the statute of frauds to permit courts of equity to compel the specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance” … . “A party’s partial performance of an alleged oral contract will be deemed sufficient to take such contract out of the statute of frauds only if it can be demonstrated that the acts constituting partial performance are unequivocally referable to said contract” … .

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he drastically changed his behavior after the agreement, including leaving his studies at Cornell University to devote his full attention to the partnership. Plaintiff also claims that he moved onto the subject premises, that he contributed financially to the business, which was struggling under burdensome mortgage payments, and that defendant referred to him as his business partner and co-owner of the farm. Plaintiff also made substantial improvements to both his residence on the farm, in which he resided full time, and to the farm itself. Given that all of these actions are unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement, we find that dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (5) based upon the statute of frauds was improper … . Leonard v Cummins, 2021 NY Slip Op 04269, Third Dept 7-8-21

 

, , ,

THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) WHEN IT APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDED APARTMENTS AND A COSTCO RETAIL FACILITY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE APPROVAL AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in an exhaustive analysis which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined the Planning Board took the required hard look, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEGRA), at all the aspects of the proposed development project. Therefore the Planning Board’s approval of the project should not have been annulled as arbitrary and capricious. The development included apartments and a Costco Wholesale retail facility. With regard to the compatibility issues, the court wrote:

In essence, although the Costco store may, to some, not be the most compatible use, the Planning Board properly viewed it in the context of the entire project. As such, the Planning Board considered not only the fact that the Costco store is a permitted use that complied with all of the design standards contained in Local Law No. 4, but also the other tangible benefits of the project, which directly aligned with the purpose of the Local Law. These factors included pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and improvements. Also, the Planning Board considered access management and transit improvements in design and layout, including the reduction of lanes … , the construction of a new roundabout to process traffic more efficiently, the reconfiguration of a major intersection to reduce vehicular speed and a new CDTA bus stop, which CDTA confirmed would ease congestion, improve safety and result in a “marked improvement for customers” in the area. The Planning Board proposed the construction of a new connector road … , and numerous project design features to prevent noise and visual and other impacts. All told, the Planning Board discharged its duty and took the requisite hard look as to compatibility and satisfied its obligations under SEQRA … . Matter of Hart v Town of Guilderland, 2021 NY Slip Op 04273, Third Dept 7-8-21

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE’S REMARKS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT MIMICKED 19TH CENTURY POLYGENISM, A DEBUNKED RACIST IDEOLOGY; SENTENCE VACATED AND REDUCED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the judge’s racist remarks at the time of sentencing required vacation of the sentence, which the Third Department reduced from 15-years-to-life to five years:

The court, practically right out of the gate, stated, “[Defendant], I feel sorry for you. Because I know that if we were to look in your mind we would find that your brain, your frontal lobes, your decision making processes are probably retarded in growth.” The court then inexplicably and shockingly reiterated, “Because we have learned through medicine, through science, that physical mental abuse especially at a young age will stunt the growth of the frontal lobes which prevents people from making decisions.” The court finally reinforced its own beliefs when it stated, “[T]he sentence here is in a way to make you safe from hurting yourself or others, because I appreciate the fact that your brain is not developed, through no fault of your own.”

In fashioning an appropriate sentence, the trial court is required to weigh and consider societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence, as well as the circumstances that gave rise to the conviction” … . Factors that have zero role in this process are the skin color of the defendant and racist views — a premise that should not have to be explicitly stated. The commentary focusing on defendant’s brain growth mimics 19th century polygenism, a racist ideology that focused on the claimed inferiority of black people based upon now debunked theories of reduced brain size … . It is shocking that any court, in 2018, would refer to this black defendant’s brain, frontal lobes and retardation of growth in concluding that defendant’s brain was not developed. Defendant is not a child or an adolescent, but was a 41-year-old grown black man at the time of sentencing. County Court’s statements are textbook language that has been used since the late 19th century and even today to justify racist ideologies and beliefs that black people are an inferior race. We find the court’s commentary dehumanizing and offensive.  People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04162, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

, ,

THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A PLASTIC CHAIR IN THE RECREATIONAL ROOM OF DEFENDANT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THE CHAIR COLLAPSED WHILE CLAIMANT WAS SITTING IN IT; THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CHAIR; COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to a plastic chair in the recreational room of a state correctional facility. Claimant alleged the back legs of the chair broke off at the same time causing him to fall to the concrete floor:

… [T]he evidence of defendant’s exclusive control, under the circumstances of this case, was sufficiently established … . Indeed, “[a]s a species of circumstantial proof, . . . res ipsa [loquitor] does not depend on a showing that the instrumentality causing the harm was within the defendant’s exclusive control; it is enough that the degree of dominion be such that the defendant can be identified with probability as the party responsible for the injury produced” … .

… [D]efendant was “under an affirmative duty to use reasonable care in making sure that the chair it provided was safe for the purpose for which it was to be used. That [claimant] had temporary possession of the chair does not negate the inference that its sudden collapse, under normal usage, was most likely caused by defendant’s negligence” … . Moreover, defendant, who no doubt had sole and exclusive possession of the chair immediately after the accident, failed to offer any evidence to support an inference of any other possible explanation for the accident … . Draper v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04163, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO FATHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE MOTHER’S PARENTING TIME AND TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have delegated to father its authority to supervise mother’s parenting time and telephone and electronic contact:

Family Court improperly delegated its authority over the mother’s supervised parenting time and telephone and electronic contact with the children to the father. “Unless [parenting time] is inimical to the children’s welfare, the court is required to structure a schedule which results in frequent and regular access by the noncustodial parent. In so doing, the court cannot delegate its authority to determine [parenting time] to either a parent or a child” … . Family Court ordered that the mother’s supervised parenting time “shall be arranged as to time, place, circumstances and supervisor as determined by the [f]ather” and that the mother shall have telephone, Facetime and/or other similar contact with the children “as permitted by the [f]ather.”

Although the father has sole custody of the children and, in such capacity, has discretion in the selection of an appropriate supervisor, Family Court failed to provide parameters with respect to the frequency of the supervised parenting time to which the mother is entitled and … failed to consider the logistical concerns in ensuring that she has frequent and regular access to the children … . Matter of Jessica HH. v Sean HH., 2021 NY Slip Op 04165, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

,

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the differences between an action to impose a constructive trust and an action alleging unjust enrichment, here in the context of a couple’s investment in building a new house and the allegation one party put in 800 hours of unpaid labor which benefitted the other party.  The court held the constructive trust action was properly dismissed, but the unjust enrichment action should not have been dismissed:

Although the equitable claims of constructive trust and unjust enrichment are elementally related and involve overlapping proof, certain essential elements differ. “[A] constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest” … . “The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise and unjust enrichment” … .As relevant here, with respect to the promise element, it may be express or implied, as determined by the circumstances … . “Finally, a person . . . is unjustly enriched when retention of the benefit received would be unjust considering the circumstances of the transfer and the relationship of the parties” … .

Importantly, and as relevant here, “the constructive trust doctrine serves as a fraud-rectifying remedy rather than an intent-enforcing one” … . By contrast, an action based on unjust enrichment, which would only result in a money judgment rather than a judicially imposed lien, requires the plaintiff to establish that “(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at [the plaintiff’s] expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . Clark v Locey, 2021 NY Slip Op 04176, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

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