You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined several counts should have been dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts in this vehicular homicide prosecution:

… [D]efendant’s convictions for vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, reckless driving and driving while intoxicated under counts 7, 12, 13 and 14 of the indictment must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of his convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide (see CPL 300.30 [4]; 300.40 [3] [b]; Penal Law §§ 125.13 [3]; 125.14 [3], [5]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1212, 1192 [2], [3] … ). Similarly, defendant’s conviction for vehicular assault in the first degree under count 9 of the indictment must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of aggravated vehicular assault (see CPL 300.30 [4]; 300.40 [3] [b]; Penal Law §§ 120.04 [3]; 120.04-a [3] …). People v Ferguson, 2021 NY Slip Op 02563, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT TIMELY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; THEREFORE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WAS NEVER COMPLETE AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT CAN CURE THE NONJURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BY ORDERING DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED AND THE DEFENDANT MAY THEN INTERPOSE AN ANSWER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment was a nullity because the process server did not timely file the affidavit of service. The defect is not jurisdictional and can be cured. But the default judgment cannot be reinstated retroactively. Once properly served the defendant may submit an answer:

… [P]laintiff’s process server effectuated service by delivery and mail (see CPLR 308 [2]) on November 17, 2017. Plaintiff’s proof of service, however, was not filed with the clerk of the court until December 11, 2017, more than 20 days after the delivery and mailing. Accordingly, the filing was untimely and, as such, service of process was never completed (see CPLR 308 [2] …).

… [F]ailure to timely file proof of service is only a procedural irregularity, as opposed to a jurisdictional defect, and a court may, sua sponte, issue an order curing said irregularity (see CPLR 2001, 2004 … ). “A court may not, however, make that relief retroactive to a defendant’s prejudice by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the order, nor may a court give effect to a default judgment that, prior to the curing of the irregularity, was a nullity requiring vacatur” … . Here, no such curative order was ever sought from or issued by Supreme Court and, therefore, defendant’s time to answer never began to run such that the resulting default judgment was a nullity requiring vacatur … . Miller Greenberg Mgt. Group, LLC v Couture, 2021 NY Slip Op 02566, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED THE LAND WHERE TREES WERE HARVESTED; THEREFORE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE TREBLE DAMAGES ASPECT OF RPAPL 861 APPLIES MUST BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had a good faith belief that the land on which trees were harvested was his own property. Therefore whether plaintiff was entitled to treble damages pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 861 must be determined at trial:

“[T]he current version of RPAPL 861 was enacted . . . in an effort to deter the illegal taking of timber by increasing the potential damages for that activity” … . If a person violates RPAPL 861 by cutting another person’s trees without the other’s consent, or by causing such cutting to occur, “an action may be maintained against such person for treble the stumpage value of the tree or timber or [$250] per tree, or both and for any permanent and substantial damage caused to the land or the improvements thereon as a result of such violation” … . However, if a defendant in such an action “establishes[,] by clear and convincing evidence, that when the defendant committed the violation, he or she had cause to believe the land was his or her own, . . . then he or she shall be liable for the stumpage value or [$250] per tree, or both” … . Thus, “a trespasser’s good faith belief in a legal right to harvest timber does not insulate that person from the imposition of statutory damages, but merely saves him or her from having to pay the plaintiff treble damages” … . “Whether treble damages pursuant to RPAPL 861 are warranted is generally a factual determination” … . Although Gregory Miller testified that he intended to remove trees only from his own property, the record reflects that he did not have a survey of the property and relied on a determination of the boundary lines based on his own measurements. We conclude that a factual question exists, as Gregory Miller has failed at this stage of the proceedings to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had a good faith belief that he owned the land at issue … . Holser v Geerholt, 2021 NY Slip Op 02578, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

,

THE MILD PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO SEXUALLY HARASSED A FELLOW EMPLOYEE VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY; MATTER REMITTED FOR IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY BY A NEW ARBITRATOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the mild penalty imposed by the arbitrator in this place-of-employment sexual harassment case violated public policy. The matter was remitted for imposition of a penalty by a different arbitrator. The employee, Dominie, committed several egregious acts of sexual harassment targeting another employee which led to his pleading guilty to harassment second degree. The arbitrator reinstated Dominie’s employment without conditions:

… [T]he situation here does not involve a single act of misconduct as in Barnard College. In defined contrast, we have a series of four separate, escalating and outrageous sexual harassment incidents. The events are particularly troublesome considering that Dominie engaged in annual sexual harassment training since 2013 and, when confronted by his supervisors after the two January 2017 incidents, promised not to re-offend. The events that followed were even more egregious and rise to the level of criminal conduct, as memorialized in Dominie’s guilty plea to the harassment charge. Given the extremely inappropriate nature of Dominie’s conduct, we conclude that the arbitrator’s decision violates public policy. The award fails to account for the rights of other employees to a non-hostile work environment and conflicts with the employer’s obligation to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace … . The fact that the victimized coworker no longer worked in the office is hardly a mitigating factor. Nor is the penalty consistent with the arbitrator’s “significant concern” that Dominie failed to acknowledge his own wrongdoing. As such, we find that Supreme Court properly vacated the award as violative of the public policy prohibiting sexual harassment. We also conclude that the court was authorized to remit the matter to a different arbitrator for the imposition of a new penalty (see CPLR 7511 [d]). Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO), Third Dept 4-29-21

 

, ,

THE ACTION CONTESTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS OF A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH OWNS RECREATIONAL LAND AND COLLECTS DUES FROM LOT OWNERS MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NOT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE ACTION IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the amendment to the by-laws defendant not-for-profit corporation which owns land underneath a man-made lake must be contested in an Article 78 action, not a declaratory judgment action. Therefore the four-month Article 78 statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred. The underlying dispute involved the assessment of annual dues for lots which had been exempt from dues. Plaintiffs are the owners of those lots:

Supreme Court concluded that the action being challenged was a legislative act, which cannot be challenged in a CPLR article 78 proceeding but must be maintained in a declaratory judgment action. However, the cases addressing legislative acts deal with challenges to “governmental activity,” rather than the activity of nonpublic corporations … . This is an important distinction as the rule prohibiting the use of CPLR article 78 proceedings to challenge acts of legislative bodies “is derived from the separation-of-powers doctrine,” and so “has no application to the quasi-legislative acts of administrative agencies” … . Similarly, it does not apply to the actions or decisions of nonpublic corporations. * * *

Whether defendant’s alleged interest in plaintiffs’ property is based on the imposition of restrictive covenants or the possibility of a lien if plaintiffs fail to pay dues on multiple lots, any such alleged interest would be based on the amended bylaws. Accordingly, though all of plaintiffs’ causes of action are couched in declaratory judgment language, they can be distilled to challenges to defendant’s enactment of the amended bylaws that could have been raised in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and are therefore subject to a four-month statute of limitations … . Indeed, other courts have held that a challenge to a corporation’s amendment of its bylaws must be raised via a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced within four months of such amendment … . Doyle v Goodnow Flow Assn., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02580, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

, ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES’ AMENDMENT TO AN INSURANCE REGULATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS OF LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY PRODUCTS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Financial Services’ (DFS’s) amendment to an Insurance Regulation was void for vagueness:

The amendment was promulgated to address concerns with respect to the growing complexities involved with life insurance and annuity products, the corresponding need for consumers to increasingly rely on the advice of professionals in order to comprehend the widening market of products available and to mitigate abuses with respect to the compensation of agents and brokers (hereinafter collectively referred to as producers [see 11 NYCRR 224.3 (c)]) who have incentive to manipulate consumers into purchasing financial products that result in higher commissions but ultimately fail to meet their needs. * * *

… [W]hile the consumer protection goals underlying promulgation of the amendment are laudable, as written, the amendment fails to provide sufficient concrete, practical guidance for producers to know whether their conduct, on a day-to-day basis, comports with the amendment’s corresponding requirements for making recommendations and compiling and evaluating the relevant suitability information of the consumer … . Although the amendment provides certain examples of what a recommendation does not include (i.e., “general factual information to consumers, such as advertisements, marketing materials, general education information” and “use of . . . interactive tool[s]” (11 NYCRR 224.3 [e] [2]), the remaining definitional language is so broad that it is difficult to discern what statements producers could potentially make that would not be reasonably interpreted by the consumer to constitute advice regarding a potential sales transaction and therefore fall within the purview of the amendment (see 11 NYCRR 224.3 [e] [1], [2]). Matter of Independent Ins. Agents & Brokers of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Fin. Servs., 2021 NY Slip Op 02574, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL EXPLAINED HIS STRATEGIES BEHIND WAIVING THE HUNTLEY HEARING AND REFRAINING FROM CONSULTING AND PRESENTING EXPERTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE RAPE TRIAL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that defense counsel, at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, adequately explained the strategic reasons for waiving the Huntley hearing and not consulting experts in this first degree rape case. Defendant was charged with having sex with a woman who was incapable of consent due to intoxication. Defendant was not read his Miranda rights until well into the police interrogation:

In support of his belief that the admission of the statements would be beneficial, counsel explained that defendant had maintained throughout the interview that the victim was an active and willing participant in the sexual encounter and that, if the statements were suppressed, the jury would only hear about the changes that defendant had made to his story when, as expected, he testified at trial and was cross-examined about them … . In contrast, if the entire interview were put into evidence with appropriate redactions, the defense would benefit from having the jury repeatedly hear defendant’s exculpatory version of events and be assured that almost all of his account had remained consistent over time. Counsel further believed that any damage caused by the jury seeing defendant walk back aspects of his story could be ameliorated, reasoning that jurors could be persuaded to sympathize with a “desperate” and “confused” defendant who wavered on a few points after prolonged, increasingly hostile questioning, but remained “adamant that everything that had just happened was consensual and [that the victim] was awake for it.” …

… [A]lthough defendant complains that counsel failed to consult with experts or present their testimony to rebut proof related to the victim’s sexual assault examination, her degree of intoxication and the presence of defendant’s genetic material in her anus, the hearing evidence reflected that counsel “had a strategic reason for [that] failure” … . … A finding that the victim was alert and willing would have … resulted in defendant’s acquittal on all charges, and counsel made the tactical decision to focus on that issue to the exclusion of murkier battles over whether the alleged anal sexual conduct had occurred or whether some of the conclusions drawn by the People’s experts were open to question. Counsel explained that he chose that course because of emotionally charged testimony from the victim, the sexual assault nurse examiner and others, all of whom he realized posed a real danger of inflaming the sympathies of the jury against defendant. As such, counsel viewed it as essential to present a narrowly tailored defense that kept the jury “singl[ed] in on” concrete facts pointing to the victim as an active participant in the sexual encounter. People v Sposito, 2021 NY Slip Op 02441, Third Dept 4-21-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A LEVEL TWO RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE; REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the level two risk level classification was supported by the evidence, but the matter must be reversed and remitted because County Court did not address defendant’s request for a downward departure:

Defendant … contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure to a risk level one classification. The record discloses that defendant made such request early in the hearing, in the event that the court placed defendant in the risk level two classification, and submitted a psychological treatment summary in support thereof. Although the summary was received into evidence and reviewed by the court, the court did not address defendant’s request but proceeded to consider the substantive risk factors, ultimately concluding that defendant should be placed in the risk level two classification. Significantly, as the record does not contain any findings or conclusions with respect to defendant’s request, we are unable to ascertain the court’s reasoning for implicitly denying it. Consequently, we “reverse and remit so that County Court may ‘determine whether or not to order a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by the offender’s guidelines factor score’ and to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required” … . People v Conrad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02194, Third Dept 4-8-21

 

,

SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF TWO DRUGS IN THE SAME TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the sentences for two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance should run concurrently because they were committed during a single transaction:

… [T]he People failed to prove that defendant committed two separate and distinct acts. Counts 1 and 2 were for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — one for each drug; thus, the actus reus elements are the same … . The record reveals that the CI made arrangements for one sale to take place and defendant engaged in a single transaction — one sale of two controlled substances. The sale occurred in defendant’s vehicle where there was an exchange of money for one bag of drugs, containing two smaller bags of drugs. As the offenses were committed through one single distinct act, the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 should run concurrently … . People v Muniz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02023, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

,

FATHER’S EXCUSE FOR NOT APPEARING (HE OVERSLEPT) WAS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FATHER DEMONSTRATED A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE TO THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; DEFAULT CUSTODY ORDER VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined father’s motion to vacate the order granting, without a hearing, custody of the child to the grandparents should have been granted. The Third Department found that father’s failure to appear was excusable (he overslept) and father had a meritorious defense to the grandparents’ application for custody:

Although oversleeping may not ordinarily constitute a reasonable excuse, we find such excuse to be reasonable under the particular circumstances of this case … . …

… [B]efore Family Court may award custody to a nonparent, it must have first made a finding of extraordinary circumstances and then determined that such award is in the child’s best interests … . …

… .Family Court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make the requisite extraordinary circumstances and best interests findings prior to awarding the grandparents permanent custody of the child. … Family Court’s failures in this regard, together with the father’s superior claim to custody of the child, constitute a meritorious defense … . Matter of Melissa F. v Raymond E., 2021 NY Slip Op 02026, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

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