You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE ITS OWN DETERMINATION TO APPORTION SOME OF CLAIMANT’S DISABILITY TO A 1976 INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined the Board did not have sufficient evidence to determine the extent to which a 1976 injury accounted for some of claimant’s disability:

We recognize that the Board’s medical guidelines “provide ‘useful criteria’ and the Board makes the ultimate determination of a claimant’s degree of disability, but that determination must be supported by substantial evidence” … . Moreover, “although the Board may reject medical evidence as incredible or insufficient, it may not fashion its own medical opinion” … . Here, there are no operative or pathological reports from any surgeries related to the 1976 injury in the record. Nor is there any medical evidence regarding the degree of disability, if any, that had resulted from the 1976 injury and/or surgery and the record reflects that claimant was fully employed with no restrictions at the time of the 2016 injury. Further, even assuming, without deciding, that an evaluation of the 1976 injury under the 1996 guidelines is appropriate for the purposes of determining whether that injury would have resulted in an SLU [schedule loss of use] award, there is no medical opinion that the 1976 injury would have resulted in an SLU award at the time of the injury or under the subsequently published 1996 guidelines. Matter of Hughes v Mid Hudson Psychiatric Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 04939, Third Dep 9-2-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ANNULLED THE ELECTION BOARD’S DESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING POLLING PLACE BECAUSE THE BOARD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION MET THE ELECTION LAW REQUIREMENTS MANDATING A LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO CITY RESIDENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined Supreme Court properly annulled the determination of the Rensselaer County Board of Elections designating an early voting polling pace pursuant to Election Law section 8-600. The 3rd Department also granted the motion to intervene in the Article 78 proceeding brought by the NAACP and three minority and/or disabled residents who argued for a polling place accessible to city residents dependent on public transportation:

… [I]n designating early voting polling places, the Board “shall have at least one polling place” in the City (as Rensselaer County’s most populous municipality) and, because the City has public transportation, “such polling place shall be situated along such transportation routes” (Election Law § 8-600 [2] [a]). Election Law § 8-600 (2) (e) further states that any early voting polling place “shall be located so that voters in the county have adequate and equitable access, taking into consideration population density, travel time to the polling place, proximity to other early voting poll sites, public transportation routes, commuter traffic patterns and such other factors the board of elections deems appropriate” (see 9 NYCRR 6211.1 [c]). * * *

… [W]e conclude that the Board did not adequately address “whether the early voting site[s are] on or near public transportation” (9 NYCRR 6211.1 [c] [2] [iv]). The failure to address that mandatory factor “precludes meaningful review of the rationality of” the Board’s siting determination, renders the decision arbitrary and capricious and, by itself, warrants annulment … . The Board failed to meaningfully address most of the other factors as well. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled the Board’s determination designating early voting polling places for the 2021 election … . Matter of People of the State of New York v Schofield, 2021 NY Slip Op 04785, Third Dept 8-26-21

 

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERVICE OF THE PETITION TO INVALIDATE A CERTIFICATE OF NOMINATION RAN OUT ON JULY 12; THE FACT THAT THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDERED SERVICE BY JULY 19 DID NOT EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEYOND JULY 12 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petition to invalidate a certificate of nomination was properly dismissed as untimely. The fact that the order to show cause directing service of the petition by a date which was beyond the statute of limitation was of no consequence:

… Election Law § 16-102 (2) provides … that “[a] proceeding with respect to a primary, convention, meeting of a party committee, or caucus shall be instituted within [10] days after the holding of such primary or convention or the filing of the certificate of nominations made at such caucus or meeting of a party committee.” A special proceeding, in turn, is commenced by the filing of a petition … . Notably, “[a] petitioner raising a challenge under Election Law § 16-102 must commence the proceeding and complete service on all the necessary parties within the period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2). In order to properly complete service, actual delivery must occur no later than the last day upon which the proceeding may be commenced” … . As the certificate of nomination … was filed on July 2, 2021, the last day upon which to commence this proceeding was July 12, 2021.

Even accepting as true that the petition was timely filed on July 12, 2021, the fact remains … that none of the named respondents was served with the petition prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. To the extent that petitioners rely upon the service provisions embodied in the order to show cause, which permitted service by various means on or before July 19, 2021, such reliance is misplaced. A court cannot extend the time within which to commence an action or proceeding (see CPLR 201 ,,,). Matter of Facteau v Clinton County Bd. of Elections, 2021 NY Slip Op 04743, Third Dept 8-18-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FLOODED PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE NUISANCE MAY INVOLVE INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment in this dispute about responsibility for storm water runoff which allegedly flooded plaintiff’s property. Supreme Court, however, erred in dismissing plaintiff’s negligence cause of action as duplicative of the nuisance cause of action:

The effect of defendant’s actions was to eliminate what was described as a retention pond on the cemetery land, causing the water to back up onto plaintiff’s property, which, prior to the placement of fill, had never experienced flooding. Since the fill was placed, plaintiff’s property flooded on four occasions, and plaintiff, after the first flood in February 2009, placed defendant on notice of the flood and the resulting damages and asked for its assistance to remedy the problem. Defendant denied responsibility for the flooding and took no remedial efforts to prevent further flooding. Although the causes of action for negligence and private nuisance arise out of the same undisputed facts, it cannot be said that the private nuisance claim arises solely out of the negligence claim. To the contrary, the facts as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint and bills of particulars demonstrate a viable theory of private nuisance based upon intentional conduct, i.e., that defendant eventually knew or should have known that its actions in placing the fill caused substantial interference and nevertheless continued it … . WFE Ventures, Inc. v GBD Lake Placid, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04683, Third Dept 8-12-21

 

, ,

FATHER ACKNOWLEDGED IMPREGNATING THE OLDEST CHILD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WAS PROPER; HOWEVER THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHEN MOTHER LEARNED OF THE PREGNANCY AND WHETHER SHE KNEW WHO THE FATHER WAS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined summary judgment on the abuse and neglect allegations against father was properly granted, but summary judgment on the abuse and neglect allegations against mother should not have been granted. Father acknowledged he impregnated the oldest child (who was eleven at the time of the birth). But there were questions of fact about whether mother knew who the father was and whether she know the child was pregnant and therefore in need of medical care:

Although it is a drastic procedural device rarely used in Family Court proceedings, Family Court may grant summary judgment in an abuse and neglect proceeding if no triable issue of fact exists … . On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . If this burden is met, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact … . In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … .

* * * Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the mother and according her the benefit of every favorable inference, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the mother knew or should have known of the father’s sexual abuse and impregnation of the oldest child or that the mother fostered or allowed the children to live in a sexually charged household.

* * * Although the mother provided some testimony as to when she learned of the pregnancy,[FN9] her testimony changed during the course of the lengthy hearing and a determination as to which, if any, of her accounts was credible is inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment … . Matter of Kai G. (Amanda G.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04682, Third Dept 8-12-21

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CLOSED CONTAINERS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ITEMS BEING IN DEFENDANT’S “GRABBABLE” AREA OR BY “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES;” CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a concurrence, determined the skimmer (a forgery device) was the product of an illegal warrantless search and should have been suppressed:

“To justify a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two requirements: The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest” … . Specific to this “place” requirement, the item searched must be conducted within the immediate control or grabbable area of the suspect … . “The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . …

… [T]he trooper testified that he removed the fanny pack and backpack from the apartment when he left and then placed defendant — who was in handcuffs — in the patrol vehicle. Thereafter, the trooper made a cursory search of the fanny pack and backpack on the hood of the vehicle. At the time of the search, defendant was incapable of grabbing the items as he was handcuffed and inside the trooper’s vehicle. The fanny pack and backpack were in the exclusive control of the trooper and defendant could not possibly gain possession of them or destroy any evidence in them … . …

[T]he record reflects that defendant’s demeanor and actions were not threatening, he had been pat-frisked earlier in the apartment, he was cooperative and offered no resistance when he was handcuffed and … the circumstances of defendant’s arrest did not give rise to a reasonable belief that the fanny pack or backpack contained a weapon or dangerous instrument. … [T]he trooper’s testimony at the suppression hearing did not demonstrate exigent circumstances. People v Crosse, 2021 NY Slip Op 04636, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY (WHAT MOTHER TOLD THE CASEWORKER) IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST FATHER, NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improperly relied upon hearsay to make neglect findings and the evidence was otherwise insufficient. Mother’s neglect petitions were disposed of after she admitted neglect. The instant proceeding concerned the neglect petitions against father (the respondent) to which mother was not a party. The caseworker testified about what mother had told her:

… [P]etitioner’s caseworker testified as to what the mother had told her based upon their conversations. In this regard, the caseworker stated that the mother told her that, while the middle and youngest children were with her, she had been drinking heavily, that the mother believed that she may have assaulted one of the children and that, after respondent took the children for a while, he came back to her with some vodka, which she drank. As respondent and the attorney for the children correctly argue, Family Court improperly relied on this hearsay testimony — i.e., what the mother told the caseworker — in reaching its determination … , and the error in doing so was not harmless … . Matter of Aiden J. (Armando K.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04637, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

PETITIONER WAITED EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT RECEIVING A DECISION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE BEFORE FILING AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE DENIAL; PETITIONER WAS ENTITED TO THE “FUTILITY EXCEPTION” TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE TURNING TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner-inmate was entitled to the “futility exception” to the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before bringing an Article 78 proceeding to contest the administrative ruling. Petitioner brought a grievance alleging the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) should not have reduced his pay for work in the mess hall because of his refusal to participate in certain prison programs. After the superintendent denied relief petitioner appealed to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) but eight months passed without a decision. Then petitioner brought the Article 78:

… [P]etitioner filed his administrative appeal with CORC on December 12, 2018 and commenced this proceeding on August 19, 2019. He waited more than eight months without having received a decision — which is seven months after CORC’s 30-day limit had expired — before he commenced this proceeding. To the extent that the regulations are unclear regarding whether CORC’s failure to decide an appeal within 30 days constitutes a constructive denial, a grievant is placed in a catch-22 situation — if he or she files a CPLR article 78 proceeding before receiving a decision from CORC, DOCCS may seek dismissal based on the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but, if the grievant does not commence a court proceeding within four months after the 30-day decision period, he or she risks the possibility of DOCCS seeking dismissal based on a statute of limitations defense … . This untenable position, which arises from the confluence of CORC’s failure to comply with the regulation’s time frame for deciding administrative appeals and the lack of clarity in a different DOCCS regulation, creates substantial prejudice to a grievant such as petitioner … . Under the circumstances, we find that exhaustion should be excused based on the futility exception. Matter of McMillian v Krygier, 2021 NY Slip Op 04638, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DENY PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST BY EXTENDING ITS SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINES FOR RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined respondent NYS Department of Transportation did not constructively deny petitioner’s FOIL request by extending the time for a response. Therefore petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding was premature and was rendered moot by petitioner’s ultimate response to the request:

Generally, an agency must respond to a written request for records within a reasonable time and “there is no specific time period in which the agency must grant access to the records” … . The response protocol for an agency to follow is set forth in Public Officers Law § 89 (3) (a). An agency must respond within five business days and has various options — to either provide the records, deny the request or, as pertinent here, to “furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied” … . Respondent exercised that third option through the extension notices. Matter of Save Monroe Ave., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04639, Third Dept 8-4-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant in this foreclosure action could not raise the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an Administrative Order (AO) because it could have been raised on a prior appeal which was not perfected. The dissent argued the court could and should address the “AO” issue on this appeal:

From the dissent:

… [A] plaintiff’s attorney is required to affirm after conferring with a representative of the plaintiff and upon the attorney’s “own inspection and other reasonable inquiry” that the pleadings and submissions “contain no false statements of fact or law.”  …

… [P]laintiff’s attorney was required to file the affidavit conforming with AO/431/11 and AO/208/13, an issue that was directly raised in defendant’s motion to vacate and could have been addressed by this Court had defendant perfected his appeal from the court’s April 2018 order. In an instance such as this, this Court “has the authority to entertain a second appeal in the exercise of [our] discretion, even where a prior appeal on the same issue has been dismissed for failure to prosecute” … . Given that the filing of an attorney affirmation is mandatory and, at the latest, must be filed five business days before a scheduled auction … , I believe we should exercise our discretion and address the issue of noncompliance (id.). To assure the integrity of the foreclosure process, which is the entire objective of the Administrative Orders, we should modify the order by requiring a continued stay of any auction sale pending the submission of a compliant attorney affirmation. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sage, 2021 NY Slip Op 04583, Third Dept 7-29-21

 

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