You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that where the court addresses the merits of a motion to reargue it will be deemed to have granted the motion to reargue for purposes of appeal. Therefore, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the denial after addressing the merits is appealable. In that case the motion is treated as if the motion to reargue were granted and then the original decision was adhered to. The court also noted that the requirements for the personal service of a notice of sale were not met in this case. Therefore the 10-day period for bringing a special proceeding to determined the validity of the lien did not start to run:

“Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . * * *

Under Lien Law §201-a, petitioner’s 10-day time period to “commence a special proceeding to determine the validity of the lien” does not begin to run until service upon it of the “notice of sale” by respondent, the lienor. Service of such notice of sale by the lienor must be effectuated by personal service “within the county where [the] lien arose,” unless the person to be served “cannot with due diligence be found within such county” (Lien Law § 201). … As Supreme Court correctly found, and as the record reflects, respondent failed to submit any proof that it exercised due diligence in seeking to effect personal service upon petitioner of the notice of lien and sale before improperly resorting to the statutory alternative of certified mail service. As a result, the 10-day time limitation for petitioner to challenge the lien under Lien Law § 201-a did not begin to run … . Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v J.D. Mar. Serv., 2020 NY Slip Op 05260, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

,

AN UNPAID PENALTY ASSESSED FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE WAS ENTERED AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BY THE COUNTY CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEFENDANT COULD NOT MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a judgment entered in Supreme Court by the county clerk pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law 26  is not reviewable by Supreme Court. The Workers’ Compensation Board assessed a penalty against defendant for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage. When the penalty was not paid the judgment was entered by the county clerk as a ministerial act which cannot be addressed by a motion in Supreme Court to vacate a default judgment:

Defendants … ignore the peculiar statutory scheme by which only this Court may review a final determination by plaintiff with respect to, among other things, assessments ordered pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 52 (5) up until the time that a judgment against an employer is entered. At that point, no appeal is permitted … .

Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 provides that where an employer fails to pay an assessment imposed pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 52 (5) within 20 days after it is due, plaintiff’s chair may file a certified copy of the order imposing such assessment with the county clerk where the employer’s principal place of business is maintained. “[T]hereupon[,] judgment must be entered in the [S]upreme [C]ourt, by the clerk of such county in conformity therewith immediately upon such filing. . . . Such judgment shall be entered in the same manner, have the same effect and be subject to the same proceedings as though rendered in a suit duly heard and determined by the [S]upreme [C]ourt, except that no appeal may be taken therefrom” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 …). The entry of such judgment is “merely a ministerial act” made pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 … . Indeed, the statute provides that the court shall “vacate or modify” the judgment only “to conform to any later award or decision of [plaintiff]” and “[t]he award may be so compromised [only] by [plaintiff and] in the discretion of [plaintiff]” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 26). Inasmuch as the entry of plaintiff’s order here by the County Clerk was “merely a ministerial act” … , Supreme Court lacked the authority to vacate the judgment because the underlying order was not issued by the court … . …

To allow defendants to petition a different court to vacate its default after judgment has been entered would undermine this statutory scheme by allowing a court other than this one to, in effect, review a final decision of plaintiff. Workers’ Compensation Bd. of the State of N.Y. v Williams Auto Parts Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05261, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

,

CLAIMANT TRUCK DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FLS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND UNDER THE LABOR LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT FLS DID NOT MAINTAIN A FLEET OF TRUCKS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Fundamental Labor Strategies (FLS) was claimant truck driver’s employer, pursuant to common law and the Labor Law (NYS Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act), despite the fact FLS did not maintain a fleet of trucks:

Labor Law § 862-b (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny person performing commercial goods transportation services for a commercial goods transportation contractor shall be classified as an employee of the commercial goods transportation contractor unless” such person is either a separate business entity as defined by Labor Law § 862-b (2) or an independent contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 862-b (1) (a)-(c). The statutory scheme further defines “commercial goods transportation services” as “the transportation of goods for compensation by a driver who possesses a state-issued driver’s license, transports goods in . . . New York, and operates a commercial motor vehicle” (Labor Law § 862-a [3]), and a “commercial goods transportation contractor” includes any legal entity that compensates a driver for performing such services (Labor Law § 862-a [1]). …

FLS falls squarely within the definition of a commercial goods transportation contractor as set forth in Labor Law § 862-a (1). Hence, the statutory presumption of employment applies in the first instance (see Labor Law § 862-b [1]).

To overcome the statutory presumption, FLS needed to establish that claimant was “free from control and direction in performing [his] job,” both under the terms of his letter agreement with FLS and “in fact” (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [a]), that the services rendered by claimant were “performed outside [FLS’s] usual course of business” (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [b]) and that claimant was “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business that is similar to the service” he performed for FLS (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [c]). All three criteria — commonly referred to as the ABC test — had to be met in order for claimant to be classified as an independent contractor (see Labor Law § 862-b [1]).

… [S]ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that FLS failed to establish that claimant was free from direction and control in performing his job. Matter of Doster (Fundamental Labor Strategies–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05262, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a haircare product sales representative, was not an employee of Alterna Holding Corporation, the producer of the haircare products:

Alterna Holding Corporation produces haircare products that are sold at various retail stores. To facilitate its business, Alterna places sales and education representatives at the stores. These representatives educate store employees and customers about Alterna’s products. Claimant was a representative for Alterna at Sephora stores in the New York City area from April 2012 to September 2014. * * *

The record reflects that claimant received no initial training or instruction on how to perform her duties. Claimant was not required to submit reports, attend meetings or regularly check in with Alterna. Claimant was not responsible for supplying the product to the Sephora stores, and the sales of the product were carried out by Sephora employees. Although Alterna provided claimant with a list of Sephora stores for her to visit, she was not required to visit all the stores on the list if she did not want to, and claimant testified that there were some stores that she never visited. Claimant was never supervised while at the stores or had her performance reviewed. Claimant was advised to work five days a week, but she set her own schedule and she could take time off, including a week at a time, without notifying Alterna. Matter of Jordan (Alterna Holdings Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05266, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ARRANGED DELIVERIES FOR ITS CLIENTS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant delivery driver was an employee of TN Couriers (TNC) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

TN Couriers LLC (hereinafter TNC) is a business logistics company that acts as a broker between delivery drivers and clients seeking to have products transported from one location to another. Claimant was retained by TNC to deliver auto parts for The Radiator Store, one of TNC’s clients. * * *

Although the daily delivery activities of claimant and other drivers were directed by TNC’s client, TNC retained control over other important aspects of the work. These included screening driver applicants, assigning drivers to clients, setting the rate of pay, partially reimbursing expenses, establishing performance standards, requiring valid licenses and insurance, and handling client complaints. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that TNC exercised a sufficient indicia of control over claimant to be deemed his employer and liable for additional contributions … . Matter of Murray (TN Couriers LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05269, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

CLAIMANT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was simultaneously entitled to an award for a schedule loss of use [SLU] and a permanent partial disability classification:

For the reasons more fully discussed in Matter of Arias v City of New York (182 AD3d 170, 172 [2020]), we agree with claimant’s contention that the Board erred in disregarding or attempting to distinguish Matter of Taher [162 AD3d 1288] … . Under Matter of Taher, a claimant who sustains both schedule and nonschedule permanent injuries in the same work-related accident and returns to work at preinjury wages — and, thus, has not received a reduced-earnings award based upon a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3]) — is entitled to an SLU [schedule loss of use] award for permanent partial impairments to the statutorily enumerated body parts, here, claimant’s knee and possibly his left elbow (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [a] …). Matter of Garrison-Bey v Department of Educ., 2020 NY Slip Op 05273, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

CLAIMANT DID NOT TRY TO HIDE THE DOG-WALKING BUSINESS AND WAS ONLY TANGENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION SHE HAD MADE A MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT IN HER CLAIM FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS STEMMING FROM HER FORMER EMPLOYMENT AS A BARTENDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant did not make a material false claim about her involvement in a dog-walking business after the injuries for which she sought Workers’ Compensation benefits. The Board had reversed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s (WCLJ’s) finding to that effect. The Third Department held the evidence did not support the conclusion that claimant was involved in the dog-walking business, run by her brother, and therefore the evidence did not support the conclusion claimant had violated Workers’ Compensation Law 114-a by making a false statement

… [T]he record does not establish that claimant knowingly made a material false statement to influence her claim for compensation in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a … . There is no indication that claimant actively participated in the business after she began receiving temporary total disability payments. Her involvement was tangential at best. Although the business remained intact, it was claimant’s brother who ran the day-to-day operations. Significantly, there is nothing to indicate that claimant attempted to hide the business, as the Board was well aware of its existence at the time that the WCLJ made the reduced earnings award. Accordingly, the Board’s decision finding that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a and imposing penalties is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. Matter of Nikac v Joal Rest. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05274, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

,

THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT PLAINTIFF WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s defamation action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was accused by a fellow library board member, Hoag, of misappropriating over $20,000 in library funds. A criminal investigation uncovered no wrongdoing and plaintiff brought the defamation suit. The defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege because Hoag had an interest in the subject matter and the statements were made to a person with a corresponding interest. Therefore the statements were actionable only if Hoag was motivated solely by malice. The court held the statements were made in good faith, despite evidence that Hoag disliked plaintiff:

“Courts have long recognized that the public interest is served by shielding certain communications, though possibly defamatory, from litigation, rather than risk stifling them altogether” … . Those communications include ones protected by the qualified privilege that attaches to a person’s good faith communication “upon a subject in which he or she has an interest, or a legal, moral or societal interest to speak, and . . . made to a person with a corresponding interest” … . …

Defendants … came forward with proof that Hoag made the communication in good faith, with Hoag and other Board members averring that their review of financial records, as well as plaintiff’s refusal to provide requested documentation, caused them to believe that plaintiff had made numerous questionable, unauthorized and/or undocumented expenditures of library funds. …

Inasmuch as the proof reflects that the inquiry into library spending by Hoag and other Board members was at least part of what led Hoag to accuse plaintiff of misappropriating funds, “even if [Hoag] disliked plaintiff or possessed some ill will towards her, plaintiff has failed to make an evidentiary showing that [Hoag was] motivated by malice alone in making the statement[]” … . Macumber v South New Berlin Lib., 2020 NY Slip Op 05113, Third Dept 9-24-20

 

MISBEHAVIOR CHARGES BASED UPON ITEMS ALLEGEDLY FOUND DURING A SEARCH OF PETITIONER’S CELL CONDUCTED WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PRESENT ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the findings of guilt on possessing a weapon and possessing an altered item because defendant was not present during all of the search of his cell before the weapon was discovered:

… [W]ith respect to the charges of possessing a weapon and possessing an altered item, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that the findings of guilt as to those charges should be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record on the ground that petitioner was not present during all of the search of the cell before the weapon was discovered. Matter of Sylvester v Annucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 05109, Third Dept 9-24-20

 

,

PETITIONER’S PISTOL PERMIT WAS NOT REVOKED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED IN THE PAST, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT “GOOD CAUSE” FOR DENIAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE PERMIT; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner’s application for reinstatement of his pistol permit should not have been denied simply on the ground it had been revoked before. The matter was remitted:

… [P]etitioner’s application was erroneously denied on the sole ground that his pistol permit had previously been revoked. Although “[a] pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications,” denials must be based upon “good cause” … . Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (k) prohibits the issuance of a pistol permit to an individual “who has . . . had a license revoked or who is . . . under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of [CPL 530.14] or [Family Ct Act § 842-a].” This Penal Law statute, however, “was intended to protect victims of domestic violence from individuals who have orders of protection issued against them” and, thus, necessarily bars issuance only where the prior pistol permit was revoked pursuant to one of the cited statutes … .

Here, petitioner’s prior permit was not revoked pursuant to either CPL 530.14 or Family Ct Act § 842-a, but instead upon proof that petitioner made a certain threatening remark and failed to comply with an order directing him to turn in all of his firearms. “Although the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permit and the reasons therefor unquestionably could have some bearing on whether there is good cause to deny his current application,” the prior revocation, alone, was not an adequate basis for the denial (id. at 1114 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). As the determination set forth no other ground for denying the permit, it was not based on “good cause” and must be annulled as arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Gaul v Sober, 2020 NY Slip Op 05013, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

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