You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS ARSON AND ANIMAL TORTURE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE JUROR EXPRESSED A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO INJURY TO ANIMALS AND THE COURT NEVER SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF SHOULD COULD BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of arson and torturing animals, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror who expressed her highly emotional reaction to the injury of animals should have been granted:

Defendant challenged this prospective juror for cause on the ground that “because of the animals, she couldn’t be fair and impartial.” County Court denied this challenge noting that prospective juror No. 16 had indicated that “it would be very difficult” and that “she would cry,” not that she had stated she could not be impartial. Defendant then exercised a peremptory challenge to remove prospective juror No. 16, and later exhausted his peremptory challenges. Relative to the ability of prospective juror No. 16 to be fair and impartial due to her affinity for animals, despite being asked twice, she never unequivocally stated that she could be … . Thus, the court should have posed questions to rehabilitate the prospective juror “by obtaining such assurances or, if rehabilitation was not possible,” excuse her … . By failing to do so, the court committed reversible error, considering that defendant exercised a peremptory challenge to remove this prospective juror and exhausted such challenges … . People v Rios, 2021 NY Slip Op 01530, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

THE LEGISLATURE PROPERLY EMPOWERED THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TO RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH SALARY INCREASES AND THE COMMITTEE DID NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the Committee on Legislative and Executive Compensation was properly created by the Legislature in the 2018 budget bill and the recommendations of salary increases did not exceed the scope Committee’s authority:

Plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action seeking, among other things, declarations that (1) the enabling statute was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority under the NY Constitution, (2) the Committee exceeded the scope of any authority lawfully delegated to it, (3) the disbursement of funds according to the Committee’s report was unlawful under State Finance Law § 123, and (4) the Committee’s report was void under the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law art 7). Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). * * *

“While the Legislature cannot delegate its lawmaking functions to other bodies, there is no constitutional prohibition against the delegation of power to an agency or commission to administer the laws promulgated by the Legislature, provided that power is circumscribed by reasonable safeguards and standards” … . Although the NY Constitution vests in the Legislature the authority to “‘determine its own compensation'” … , plaintiffs have proffered no persuasive authority supporting the proposition that the Legislature may not delegate such authority to an independent body in the manner done here, so long as the Legislature makes the basic policy choice and provides reasonable standards and safeguards circumscribing the body’s authority. Delgado v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01534, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this foreclosure action should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216, even though plaintiff’s excuse for failure to comply with the 90-day demand to file a note of issue was not justifiable:

Because there was no compliance with the 90-day demand, the party seeking to avoid dismissal had to demonstrate a “justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” … . The opposition to defendant’s motion advanced only a conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure by plaintiff’s prior counsel as the justifiable excuse. Although the failure to detail and substantiate a claim of law office failure would justify dismissal of the complaint … , even when presented with an unjustifiable excuse, a court still retains some residual discretion to refuse dismissal of a complaint as a penalty under CPLR 3216 … .

… [S]ome of the delay in this case was not attributable to plaintiff. Taking into account that CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving of litigation delay” … , as well as the public policy of resolving disputes on the merits … , defendant’s motion, under the particular circumstances of this case, should have been denied to the extent that it sought dismissal of the complaint, and plaintiff’s cross motion should have been granted to the extent that it sought an extension of time to file the note of issue … . Chase Home Fin., LLC v Shoumatoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 01537, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

, ,

THE REPEAL OF THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW REQUIRING VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the repeal of the religious exemption to the Pubic Health Law which allowed parents to refuse to vaccinate their children against measles was constitutional. The statute also allows a medical exemption, which was not repealed. The declaratoy-judgment complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action:

It is well settled that, “the right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that [one’s] religion prescribes (or proscribes)” … . As such, to state a federal free exercise claim, a plaintiff generally must establish that “the object or purpose of a law is the suppression of religion or religious conduct” … . Significantly, if the law is neutral and of general applicability, a rational basis is all that is required to meet constitutional muster under the First Amendment, even if the law “proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that [one’s] religion prescribes (or proscribes)” … . * * *

Those school children with medical exemptions have been advised by a physician that certain immunizations may be detrimental to their physical health (see Public Health Law § 2164 [8]). There are many arguments to be made as to how children formerly subjected to the religious exemption may also be detrimentally impacted, however, documented concerns as to the physical well-being of children with medical exemptions is a sufficient basis upon which to distinguish the two groups. Indeed, it would be irrational to sacrifice the physical health of some children in the pursuit of protecting public health. In attempting to address the vulnerabilities in its current immunization scheme, the Legislature was permitted to exercise such “broad discretion required for the protection of the public health” … . F.F. v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01541, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

,

RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS DENIED HER RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent juvenile was denied her right to a speedy trial in this juvenile delinquency proceeding. The respondent initially waived her speedy trial rights to allow a diagnostic evaluation, which would take 90 days. Before the evaluation was complete, in response to allegations that respondent was acting aggressively in the nonsecure facility where she was detained, Family Court ordered respondent to a secure facility, thereby making the diagnostic evaluation impossible. At that point respondent rescinded her speedy trial waiver:

… [A]lthough respondent waived her right to a speedy fact-finding hearing during the first appearance held on April 4, 2019, the waiver was expressly limited to the time necessary to complete the diagnostic evaluation. By entering an order on June 26, 2019 directing respondent’s transfer from Elmcrest Children’s Center to a secure facility, Family Court knowingly eliminated the possibility that the diagnostic evaluation would be continued and completed. Under such circumstances, respondent’s waiver of her speedy trial rights effectively expired on June 26, 2019. Consequently, Family Court should have commenced a fact-finding hearing within three days of June 26, 2019 or, alternatively, brought the parties before it and either obtained a further waiver of respondent’s speedy trial rights or set forth on the record its reasons for adjourning the fact-finding hearing beyond the prescribed three-day period … . Inasmuch as Family Court failed to do any of the foregoing and instead did not commence the fact-finding hearing until August 15, 2019, some 50 days after the expiration of respondent’s speedy trial waiver, we find that Family Court violated respondent’s right to a speedy fact-finding hearing … . Matter of Erika UU., 2021 NY Slip Op 01543, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

,

THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE IF THE DEFAULT WERE NOT CURED, DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt was not accelerated by a letter indicating the debt would be accelerated on a specific future date if the arears were not paid:

… [T]he issue is whether the May 2008 default letter was an acceleration event that triggered the statute of limitations. We hold that is was not. Thus, the second action, commenced in October 2014, was timely. To that end, the May 2008 letter provided that, if the default was not cured “on or before June 10, 2008, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” Since this letter was “‘merely an expression of future intent that fell short of an actual acceleration,’ which could ‘be changed in the interim'” … , it did not accelerate the debt … . “[T]he letter did not seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written” … . Further, the May 2008 letter specifically discussed other non-acceleration options for defendant, including a repayment plan or loan modification, which plaintiff, as the holder of the note, should be able to do “without running the risk of being deemed to have taken the drastic step of accelerating the loan” … . Thus, the statute of limitations was not triggered until the debt was accelerated by the commencement of the first action in February 2009 … , rendering the commencement of the second action, in October 2014, timely as it was within the six-year statute of limitations …  . GMAT Legal Tit. Trust 2014-1, Us Bank Natl. Assn. v Wood, 2021 NY Slip Op 01455, Third Dept 3-11-21

 

, ,

BUDGETARY CONCERNS RELATED TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC JUSTIFED THE DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION TO CONTINUE SERVING ON THE BENCH TO 46 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO REACHED THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 70 IN 2020 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a partial dissent, determined the Administrative Board of the NYS Unified Court System did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied certification to 46 of 49 Supreme Court Justices who reached the age of 70 in 2020. Retirement at age 70 is mandated by the NYS Constitution. But certification to continue serving on the bench can be granted by the Board. Here the Board based its decision to deny certification to 46 justices on budgetary concerns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic:

The Board minutes explain that the Board “declined to certify 46 of the 49 [Justices] applying for certification owing to current severe budgetary constraints occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic. Three [Justices], having specialized additional assignments[,] were certified.” The Board’s certification of three applicants reflects both an individualized assessment and a recognition — “at least impliedly” — that additional judicial services are necessary … . …”[W]hether the services of a particular Justice are ‘necessary to expedite the business of the court’ encompasses much more than a mechanical inquiry into the size of the courts’ docket divided by the number of Justices” … . Certainly, it should be recognized that the continued services of the petitioner Justices would advance the needs of the court in managing an expanding caseload. That positive contribution, however, is not the deciding factor, as the Board is charged with balancing the costs of certification with the overall needs of the court system … . … [T]he Board made the extremely difficult judgment call that certification would prove too costly under the economic dilemma presented. … [C]ertification would significantly disrupt overall court operations given that the alternative savings mechanism would require more than 300 layoffs of nonjudicial personnel. Achieving the proper balance for the court system was for the Board to determine. … In our view, the Board acted in accord with the governing standard and within the scope of its broad authority in basing its ultimate decision on the overall needs of the court system. Matter of Gesmer v Administrative Bd. of the N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., 2021 NY Slip Op 01376, Third Dept 3-9-21

 

WHETHER PLAINTIFF USED ONE OR BOTH HANDS TO MANIPULATE A HOSE WHILE STANDING ON A LADDER WHICH COLLAPSED OR SLIPPED WAS RELEVANT ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he fell from an A-frame ladder which collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to support him. Plaintiff was using a hose to insert insulation and was supposed to keep one hand on the ladder at all times. Defendant argued plaintiff demonstrated at his deposition that he had both hands on the hose. The majority held, even if plaintiff used both hands to manipulate the hose, that would constitute comparative negligence which is not a bar to recovery:

… [D]efendant relied upon plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which he averred that he chose a wooden, A-frame ladder, which he described as “sturdy,” and placed so it was steady and free from “wiggling.” Plaintiff testified that, while standing on the steps of the ladder, he maintained a three-point safety stance, with his feet and one arm in contact with the ladder, and his other hand holding the hose that fed the insulation into the building’s overhang. Plaintiff indicated that the ladder began to move forward, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Defendant argued that this testimony established that the ladder “was adequate and properly placed” … , and that the testimony about plaintiff keeping one hand in contact with the ladder contradicted gestures he made during the deposition, where he seemed to indicate that “both [of his] hands [were] cupped around an imaginary hose,” thus posing issues of fact.

As Supreme Court found, the deposition testimony is not clear as to whether plaintiff maintained the three-point safety stance while on the ladder. Nonetheless, even if this disputed issue was resolved against plaintiff, this would merely present a factual question as to his potential comparative negligence, which “does not relieve defendant[] of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . Bennett v Savage, 2021 NY Slip Op 01306, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

COUNTY COURT’S TELLING DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED IF HE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT ADEQUATELY INFORM DEFENDANT HIS STATEMENT IN THE PROBATION INTERVIEW THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER THE BURGLARY WOULD TRIGGER AN ENHANCED SENTENCE; SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined that County Court’s telling defendant he would enhance defendant’s sentence if defendant did not cooperate with the Probation Department did not adequately inform defendant his sentence would be enhanced if he told the Probation Department he did not remember the burglary to which he entered a plea:

Prior to adjourning the matter for sentencing, County Court stated to defendant, “It’s important that you cooperate with the Probation Department . . ., because if you . . . didn’t cooperate with the presentence investigation report, then I could enhance the sentence and sentence you to more time.” County Court did not, however, expressly advise defendant (and defendant, in turn, did not agree) that he must provide truthful answers to the Probation Department, refrain from making statements that were inconsistent with his sworn statements during the plea colloquy and/or avoid any attempt to minimize his conduct in the underlying burglary … . Further, County Court summarily denied defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea upon this ground and, despite defendant’s request for a hearing, County Court made no further inquiry as to defendant’s allegedly inconsistent statements; rather, County Court simply concluded that defendant’s stated inability to recall the burglary at the time of his interview with the Probation Department constituted a failure to “cooperate” in the preparation of the presentence investigation report. Given the subjective nature of the court’s requirement that defendant “cooperate” with the Probation Department and the court’s corresponding lack of further inquiry, County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without first affording defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Ackley, 2021 NY Slip Op 01293, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

, ,

THE FORMER SURROGATE, NOW IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, CANNOT REPRESENT A CLIENT IN A CASE WHICH WAS BEFORE HER AS SURROGATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the former Surrogate, who is now in private practice, cannot represent a client in a proceeding which was before her as Surrogate:

Respondent contends that Surrogate’s Court erred in not granting her motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel. We agree. Just as a judge may not preside over a case that he or she was previously involved in as an attorney (see Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1] [b] [i]), an attorney may not appear for a client in a case that he or she previously presided over as a judge (see Judiciary Law § 17; … see also Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.12 [a]). To that end, Judiciary Law § 17 provides that a “former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counsellor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, which has been before him [or her] in his [or her] official character.” This prohibition is “absolute” and “establishes a bright-line disqualification rule” … . By our reading, this statute clearly operates to disqualify petitioner’s counsel — who previously presided as the Surrogate over the probate of decedent’s will and the issuance of letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship to respondent — from now representing petitioner in his claims against respondent involving the same estate and the same trust … . To the extent that Surrogate’s Court determined that Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.00) rule 1.12 (a) would permit the former Surrogate to represent petitioner in this matter — a finding with which we do not agree — this rule cannot be relied upon to permit a representation agreement that is otherwise precluded by Judiciary Law § 17. Matter of Gordon, 2021 NY Slip Op 01294, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

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