You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT BOTH DRIVERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPER SIGNAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ expert raised a question of fact whether proper signage at the intersection where the traffic accident occurred could have prevented the collision. The fact that both drivers were familiar with the intersection did not require that the town’s motion for summary judgment be granted (as Supreme Court had found):

“As a general rule, the question of proximate cause is to be decided by the finder of fact,” but it may be decided as a matter of law “where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the Town submitted evidence revealing that the drivers had some familiarity with the intersection, together with expert proof that the existing markings and traffic control devices were appropriate and consistent with applicable design standards. However, plaintiffs countered the Town’s showing with evidence that additional devices, such as a stop sign and painted stop bar, as well as pavement markings indicating the proper turning radius, were required for the subject intersection by applicable design standards; plaintiffs’ expert opined that the absence of such markings and devices was a substantial contributing factor to this collision. Notably, “a disagreement . . . between experts merely creates a question of credibility to be resolved by the finder of fact” … . Upon review, we do not find the opinions expressed by plaintiffs’ expert in this matter to be lacking in either substance or foundation … . O’Keefe v Wohl, 2020 NY Slip Op 03579, Third Dept 6-25-20

 

, ,

PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BY MOTHER OF A 14-YEAR-OLD KILLED WHEN WORKING ILLEGALLY ON DEFENDANT FARM PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE RECOVERY UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY BECAUSE THE INTENTIONAL-TORT EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY; THE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE; IN ADDITION THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS ACTED WILLFULLY OR INTENTIONALLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the personal injury action brought by decedent’s mother was properly dismissed because the recovery pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law was the exclusive remedy. Plaintiff’s decedent, 14-years-old, was killed operating a skid steer while illegally employed by defendant’s (Park’s) farm. Although plaintiffs recovered Workers’ Compensation benefits, plaintiffs argued an exception to the exclusive-remedy restriction for intentional torts applied. The Third Department held the exclusive-remedy restriction applied and there was no evidence of willful or intentional conduct on the part of the defendants:

Inasmuch as the [Workers’ Compensation] Board had already “determined that [decedent’s] injuries were suffered accidentally and in the course of employment” for the Farm, the claim that the Farm or its employees are liable “for an intentional tort based on the same event is barred by the exclusive remedy and finality provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, and by principles of res judicata” … . Even if the Board’s decision did not have preclusive effect, however, Supreme Court properly rejected the contention that Park engaged in “deliberate acts . . . to injure [decedent] or to have him injured” so as to bring this case within an exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law … . The record reflects that decedent used the skid steer without anyone’s knowledge and that, following the investigation into decedent’s death, Park pleaded guilty to willful failure to pay unemployment insurance contributions (see Labor Law § 633), endangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law § 260.10) and prohibited employment of a minor (see Labor Law § 133). It could be inferred from those facts that Park was negligent in failing to supervise decedent, or even reckless in exposing decedent to dangerous work that his age left him unsuited for, but not that Park acted out of a “willful intent to harm” decedent, as required … . Smith v Park, 2020 NY Slip Op 03583, Third Dept 6-25-20

 

,

PETITIONER SOUGHT A REDUCTION OF HIS 1996 LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION BUT COUNTY COURT DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT REQUESTING AN UPDATED RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS IN VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court’s failure to request an updated recommendation from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders violated the Correction Law. Petitioner was classified a level three sex offender in 1996 and filed a petition to reduce his classification to level one:

The Correction Law requires that, upon receipt of such petition to modify a sex offender’s level of notification, “the court shall forward a copy of the petition to the [B]oard and request an updated recommendation pertaining to the sex offender” (Correction Law § 168-o [4]). Upon such a request, the Board must provide an updated recommendation … . Generally, only “[a]fter reviewing the recommendation received from the [B]oard and any relevant materials and evidence” may the court grant or deny the petition for modification … .

Notwithstanding these statutory mandates, the record reflects that County Court failed to comply with them. The parties acknowledged at oral argument that an updated recommendation from the Board was not requested. Furthermore, the court did not review an updated recommendation before denying defendant’s petition. Given that these procedural requirements of Correction Law § 168-o (4) were not met, the order must be reversed … . People v Kaminski, 2020 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOLLAR STORE; THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT NEED TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO INTERPRET A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ONLY A GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE ALLOWED LENGTH OF A BUILDING FACADE; THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the abutting neighbors (Cady and Crawley) had standing to contest the town planning board’s approval of the construction of a Dollar Store, determined Supreme Court should not have found that the matter must be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance proceeding. Because the zoning ordinance in question, concerning the length of a building facade, was only a guideline, it was not necessary to involve the ZBA to interpret it:

Cady and Cawley’s residence is directly adjacent to the proposed construction site, and the proposed retail store would be directly across the woods from their property. The store’s main parking lot, which is located behind the store, is in the line of sight of Cady and Cawley’s property. As a result, the store is likely to obstruct or interfere with the scenic views within the scenic viewshed overlay district from Cady and Cawley’s property. Cady and Cawley have standing because they have demonstrated that they would suffer an “injury in fact – i.e., actual harm by the action challenged that differs from that suffered by the public at large — and that such injury falls within the zone of interests, or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . * * *

… [T]he Town zoning code states that “the length of any faÇade should generally not exceed 50 feet maximum [horizontal dimension]”. Insofar as the subject provision lacks any compulsory language, … this provision is deliberately phrased …  as a guideline, rather than as a prohibition; in other words, there was no requirement for a referral to the ZBA to determine the plain language of the statute. …

… [O]ur review of the record reveals that the Planning Board underwent a nearly four-year process that involved in-depth environmental impact reports, multiple draft EISes [environmental impact statements] and public hearings, which formed the basis of the FEIS [final environments impact statement] and SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] findings statement. Accordingly, we find that the Planning Board complied with its procedural and substantive requirements under SEQRA … . Matter of Arthur M. v Town of Germantown Planning Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03440, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

,

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIMANT IS A SEPARATE BUSINESS ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE FAIR PLAY ACT CLARIFIED; MATTER REMITTED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD FOR A DECISION WHETHER CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR USING THE CORRECT ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and remitting the matter, clarified the meaning of the first criterion for determining whether claimant is an employee or an independent contractor pursuant to the so-called separate business entity test under the Fair Play Act. Here, the Board found that the claimant was an employee of Adelchi entitled to unemployment benefits, but the Third Department, agreeing with Adelchi’s argument, held the Board had not applied the proper criteria to its analysis:

The issue [is] whether claimant could be viewed as a separate business entity and, in that regard, Adelchi argues that the Board misconstrued the first criterion of the separate business entity test by demanding proof of a total lack of direction or control over a business entity (see Labor Law § 861-c [2] [a]). Adelchi contends that this criterion of the separate business entity test instead codifies the common-law rule that “[a]n employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence demonstrates that the employer exercises control over the results produced by claimant or the means used to achieve the results” … , which involves a fact-specific inquiry where “the relevant indicia of control will necessarily vary depending on the nature of the work” … . * * *

We … conclude that the first criterion in the separate business entity test does not require a contractor to show a total lack of direction or control over a business entity, but instead that their relationship as a whole did not show sufficient “control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” by the contractor to reflect an employer-employee relationship … . Although the factual findings already made by the Board would appear to permit the determination that Adelchi did not meet the first criterion under the proper analysis, we are constrained to reverse and remit so that the Board may answer that question in the first instance … . Matter of Tuerk (Adelchi Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 03441, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

,

ONCE A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WAS FILED SUPREME COURT LACKED ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PROCEEDING AND THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined once the stipulation of discontinuance was filed Supreme Court lacked any supervisory control over the proceedings. So the subsequent motions dealing with the allocation of settlement proceeds to the plaintiffs and their attorney should have been denied. After the stipulation of discontinuance a plenary action was required to enforce or set aside the settlement:

As contemplated by the stipulation and order, counsel for the parties executed a stipulation of discontinuance that was filed with the Albany County Clerk (see CPLR 3217 [a] [2]). The filing occurred before any of the motion practice at issue and, as a result, a plenary action was required “to enforce [or set aside] the settlement since the court does not retain the power to exercise supervisory control over previously terminated actions and proceedings” … . Indeed, “[w]hen an action is discontinued, it is as if it had never been,” and Supreme Court lacked authority to grant any of the requested relief … . It follows that both motions should have been denied in their entirety. DeLap v Serseloudi, 2020 NY Slip Op 03443, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, dealt with insurance law, employment law, contract law, unjust enrichment and stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company (MLMIC) converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $75,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

… [P]er the relevant statute [(Insurance Law § 7307 [e] [3])] and the conversion plan’s definitions, plaintiff was entitled to the cash consideration … . * * *

… [T]he parties’ employment agreement provided that plaintiff would perform professional services for defendant. In exchange, defendant would pay her a stated salary and provide specified benefits including, as relevant here, obtaining and paying the premiums for professional liability insurance covering plaintiff. The record indicates that defendant purchased, controlled and maintained such a policy from MLMIC in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant was the policy administrator, selected the coverage and terms, and was responsible for all financial aspects of the policy. Notably, defendant paid annual premiums of approximately $25,710; plaintiff paid nothing toward the premiums and those amounts were not counted as income to plaintiff. Defendant received from MLMIC dividends, premium reductions and the return of premiums when the policy was canceled upon plaintiff leaving defendant’s employ, all without any objection by plaintiff. * * *

The reality is that neither party here bargained for the demutualization proceeds. Moreover, neither party actually paid for them, because membership interests in a mutual insurance company are not paid for by policy premiums; such rights are “acquired . . . at no cost, but rather as an incident of the structure of mutual insurance policies,” through operation of law and the company’s charter and bylaws … . * * *

Neither party changed its position based on demutualization and plaintiff’s conduct was neither tortious nor fraudulent. … [W]e conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden to establish its affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment. Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03444, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff in this workplace injury case precluded a contribution action by a defendant which was not a party to the release, but did not preclude an action for common-law indemnification:

In 2016, plaintiff was allegedly injured while working at a commercial construction site. Plaintiff accepted $2,000 in settlement of his claims against third-party defendants, Village Air and Electric, Inc. and Jimerico Construction, Inc. — his employer and the contractor that retained it to do work at the construction site, respectively — and executed a release agreeing to hold them harmless. He then commenced this action against defendant, another contractor whose employees had allegedly caused the condition that led to his injuries. Defendant answered and impleaded Village Air and Jimerico, claiming that it was entitled to contribution and/or indemnification.

Jimerico moved … to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that the release executed by plaintiff defeated the contribution and indemnification claims (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; General Obligations Law § 15-108) … .

… [T]he release executed by plaintiff “relieve[d] [Jimerico] from liability to any other person for contribution” pursuant to CPLR article 14 and, as a result, Supreme Court should have dismissed defendant’s contribution claim against Jimerico (General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b] …). In contrast, Jimerico’s “settlement with . . . plaintiff did not preclude [defendant] from seeking common-law indemnification from” it … . Koretnicki v Northwoods Concrete, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03445, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $50,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

Initially, Supreme Court was “bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply precedent established in another Department,” as no relevant precedent was available from this Court or the Court of Appeals … . However, this Court is not so bound … . We agree with Supreme Court’s inclinations — although that court was constrained by stare decisis not to follow them — and disagree with the First Department’s holding in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v Title (171 AD3d at 465 …). Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision in Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. (___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), we reverse. Shoback v Broome Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03447, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

,

ABSENCE OF APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS NOT JURISDICTIONAL AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA; ABSENCE OF DA’S SIGNATURE ON THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT DID NOT INVALIDATE IT; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMES ARISING FROM ONE CONTINUOUS INCIDENT WERE NOT ILLEGAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined: (1) the failure to include the approximate time of the offense in the Superior Court Information (SCI) was not a jurisdictional defect and the defect was waived by the guilty plea; (2) the district attorney’s failure to sign the waiver of indictment did not invalidate it; and (3) consecutive sentences for possession of a stolen car and damage caused to a police car (by the stolen car) were appropriate:

… [W]here, as here, the approximate time of the offenses is nonelemental and the defendant makes no argument that he or she lacked notice of the precise crimes for which he or she waived prosecution by indictment, the omission of such information is a nonjurisdictional defect, and, thus, any challenge with respect thereto is forfeited by a guilty plea … . We also note that, here, the approximate time of the offenses is readily ascertainable from the local court accusatory instruments … . …

… [T]he record contains a copy of defendant’s written waiver of indictment, which, although signed by defendant in open court in the presence of counsel, reveals a blank signature line intended for the District Attorney’s endorsement. However, the record also reveals that an order approving that waiver was entered by County Court thereafter (see CPL 195.30), and, therein, the court expressly found, among other things, that the waiver was consented to by the District Attorney (see CPL 195.10 [1] [c]). Under these circumstances, we view the absence of the District Attorney’s endorsement on the written waiver of indictment to be a technical violation of the statute that in no way infringed upon defendant’s right to indictment by a grand jury … . …

… [W]hile the … crimes occurred in the course of one continuous criminal incident, the charges arose from separate, distinct acts … . County Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences with respect to those crimes was therefore not illegal. People v Light, 2020 NY Slip Op 03148, Third Dept 6-4-20

 

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