You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE COMPENSATION FOR THE 3.86 ACRES TAKEN FOR AN AIRPORT RUNWAY AND THE 80.72 ACRES TAKEN FOR AN AVIGATION (RUNWAY APPROACH) EASEMENT; PURSUANT TO THE ISSUES OF CONTIGUITY, UNITY OF USE AND UNITY OF TITLE. THE ENTIRE PARCEL, NOT A SINGLE SMALLER PARCEL, WAS AFFECTED BY THE TAKING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a comprehensive decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined claimant was entitled to more compensation for 3.86 acres for an airport runway and 80.72 acres for an avigation easement appropriated by the County. The court considered the following issues: (1) the entire 97.48 acres, as opposed to a 12.9 acre portion, was affected by the taking because there was contiguity, unity of use, and unity of title or ownership; (2) the pretaking value of the land; and (3) the diminution of value based on the avigation easement which affected the height of buildings which could be constructed on the easement. With respect to contiguity, unity of use and unity of title, the court wrote:

Contiguity will be found between parcels when they are “adjacent and lack[] any physical boundary . . . [and are] capable of being traversed” … . “A public highway actually traveled . . . running through a large tract devoted to one purpose does not necessarily divide it into independent parcels, provided the owner has the legal right to cross the intervening strip of land” … . Given the adjacent nature of the parcels and that claimant has a 200-foot right-of-way to cross the power line fee, we find that the parcels meet the element of contiguity … .* * *

… [C]laimant’s planned development, which included retail on the southern parcel and a technology park on the northern parcel, was not merely a “prospective use existing only in the mind’s eye of [claimant] or based upon claimant’s history as a developer” … , but rather a bona fide development, planned thoroughly, whose progress was cut short by the condemnation. As such, the evidence has established that the elements of contiguity, unity of use and unity of ownership have been met … . Matter of County of Warren, 2020 NY Slip Op 02217, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

, , , ,

RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE HIS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF ON THE SAME GROUNDS, AS WELL AS DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (Ferreira) had waived his right to arbitrate his discharge from employment as a teacher pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because he sought an action at law seeking the same relief on the same grounds, as well as damages:

“Generally, when addressing waiver, courts should consider the amount of litigation that has occurred, the length of time between the start of the litigation and the arbitration request, and whether prejudice has been established” … . Moreover, the Court of Appeals has found no waiver where the ultimate objective of multiple procedures is the same, but the grounds urged for relief are discrete … .

Here, Ferreira waived his right to arbitrate because he chose to pursue an action at law asserting virtually the same grounds for relief and remedies sought in the arbitration. His notice of claim, alleging breach of contract, was filed approximately three months prior to his request for arbitration. An action was thereafter commenced, which was still pending at the time of oral argument, and, “[b]y commencing an action at law involving arbitrable issues, [Ferreira] waived whatever right [he] had to arbitration” … . Although use of litigation to preserve the status quo while awaiting arbitration does not effectuate waiver, Ferreira did not merely seek an equitable relief; rather, he sought monetary damages and other affirmative relief as a result of the termination of his employment and petitioner’s alleged violation of the CBA … . Matter of New Roots Charter Sch. (Ferreira), 2020 NY Slip Op 02223, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE SCOOTER, WHETHER DEFENDANT KNEW DECEDENT WAS NOT COMPETENT TO OPERATE THE SCOOTER, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT GAVE DECEDENT PERMISSION TO TEST DRIVE THE SCOOTER; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this negligence entrustment action, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant had dominion and control over a scooter which was for sale at a car dealership and therefore “owned” the scooter, whether defendant knew decedent was not competent to operate the scooter, and whether defendant gave the decedent permission to take the scooter for a test drive. Decedent was killed in an accident when she was taking the test drive:

“An owner of a motor vehicle . . . may be liable for negligent entrustment if he or she was negligent in entrusting it to one who he or she knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, was incompetent to operate it” … . … The [dealership] owner stated in an affidavit that neither his father nor defendant [dealership] owned the scooter. Nevertheless, the scooter was displayed for sale on defendant’s front lot and the owner stated in his deposition testimony that he would push the scooter from the garage to the lot each morning. The keys for the scooter would be in the scooter when it was on display in the lot and then was kept in a separate box behind the owner’s desk when it was not on display. The helmet was likewise kept in the office of the owner’s father. Viewing the foregoing evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that a question of fact exists as to whether defendant exerted dominion and control over the scooter so as to be its owner … . …

Defendant alternatively argues that it did not have knowledge that decedent was incompetent to operate the scooter. The owner stated that he thought decedent had a motorcycle permit, but he did not confirm this fact with decedent nor did he inquire as to whether she knew how to drive the scooter. The owner also did not check decedent’s driver’s permit or have her sign anything prior to when she drove the scooter. Other than knowing that decedent had ridden a two-wheel Yamaha Enduro road bike in the past, the owner had never seen decedent operate a scooter prior to the accident. In view of this evidence, we find that there is an issue of fact regarding whether the owner should have known that decedent was incompetent to ride the scooter … .

… The owner … admitted that, other than verbally telling decedent to wait for his father, he did not do anything else to try to stop decedent from taking the scooter. Indeed, when asked what he did when decedent walked into his father’s office and took the helmet for the scooter, the owner responded, “Nothing.” A customer who was with the owner when decedent arrived testified that it appeared that decedent did not take the scooter against the owner’s will and that “it look[ed] like . . . there was some sort of agreement because she did go.” Maguire v Upstate Auto, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02226, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE WHEN THE OBJECTION WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL WAS MADE; THERE WAS ONLY ONE HEARING AND THE REGULATION IN EFFECT AT THE TIME ONLY ASKED “WHEN” THE OBJECTION WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the appeal should not have been dismissed for failure to include the date when the objection upon which the appeal is based was made. Apparently there was only one hearing and the regulation in effect at the time of  the appeal application did not specifically require the date of the objection (only “when” the objection was made):

The Board found that the carrier’s response to question number 15 was not complete because it failed to specify “the date of the hearing” at which the carrier interposed its objection or exception to the ruling. “Although the Board has consistently found that listing the hearing date at which the objection or exception was made constitutes a complete response to [the temporal requirement of] question number 15” … , the regulation in effect at the time that the carrier submitted its application for review in June 2018 only required the applicant to state, as pertinent here, “when” the objection or exception was interposed; it did not then require that a date be specified … .

In reviewing the Board’s decision, we are guided by the fundamental principle of administrative law that “judicial review of an agency’s determination is limited to . . . the actual grounds that were relied upon by the agency in reaching its determination” … . Given that the carrier’s response to question number 15 provided temporal information, and in the absence of any finding by the Board that there were multiple hearings, we find that the Board’s denial of the carrier’s application for Board review on the ground it was incomplete — solely because it did not list a date of the hearing — was an abuse of discretion … . Matter of Mone v Deer Park Sand & Gravel Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02228, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

, ,

A PART-TIME COLLEGE INSTRUCTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN ASSURED OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE SEMESTER FOLLOWING THE SUMMER BREAK; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant, a part-time community college instructor, should not have been awarded unemployment benefits because he had been notified he would be employed in the semester after the summer break. The dissenters argued his employment depended upon course-enrollment which was uncertain:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10), “professionals who are employed by educational institutions are precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic periods if they have received a reasonable assurance of continued employment” … . “A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period … . * * *

On the record before us, the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence … . inasmuch as claimant received a reasonable assurance of continued employment for the 2018 fall semester such that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits … . Matter of Barnett (Broome County Community Coll.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 02229, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

,

THE “FALSELY REPORTING AN INCIDENT” STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S FALSE TWEETS ALLEGING A RACIALLY-MOTIVATED ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “falsely reporting an incident” conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined defendant’s tweets were protected by the First Amendment. Defendant was accused of falsely tweeting she was the victim of a racially-motivated assault:

… [A]lthough it was “not unlikely” that defendant’s false tweets about a racial assault at a state university would cause public alarm (Penal Law § 240.50 [1]), what level of public alarm rises to the level of criminal liability? Indeed, United States v Alvarez (567 US at 734 [Breyer, J., concurring]) informs us that criminalizing false speech requires either proof of specific harm to identifiable victims or a great likelihood of harm. Certainly, general concern by those reading defendant’s tweets does not rise to that level, nor does the proof adduced at trial, which established that defendant’s tweets were “retweeted” a significant number of times. In fact, because these “retweets” led to nothing more than a charged online discussion about whether a racially motivated assault did in fact occur, which falls far short of meeting the standard set forth in United States v Alvarez (567 US at 734 [Breyer, J., concurring]), we reach the inescapable conclusion that Penal Law § 240.50 (1), as applied to defendant’s conduct, is unconstitutional. …

… “[T]he remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true” (United States v Alvarez, 567 US at 727) and “social media platforms are information-disseminating fora. By the very nature of social media, falsehoods can quickly and effectively be countered by truth, making the criminalizing of false speech on social media not ‘actually necessary’ to prevent alarm and inconvenience” … . This could not be more apparent here, where defendant’s false tweets were largely debunked through counter speech; thus, criminalizing her speech by way of Penal Law § 240.50 (1) was not actually necessary to prevent public alarm and inconvenience … . People v Burwell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02205, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE WHICH FORMED ON THE STEP LEADING TO HER APARTMENT, DESPITE IT BEING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant out-of-possession landlord is liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on ice on a step leading to her apartment, despite it being plaintiff’s responsibility to remove ice and snow from the area. Plaintiff alleged the ice formed because of a leak in the porch roof:

… [P]laintiff contends that the condition that led to the formation of the ice patch was present and ascertainable for at least several days. …

… “[A] landlord has a duty to use ordinary care to keep those areas which are reserved and intended for the common use of the tenants and owner of the building and subject to the landlord’s control, i.e., the common areas, in a reasonably safe and suitable condition” … .

The roof here was not accessible or available for use by the tenants … , but the record indicates that the exterior of the building may have been within defendants’ control. Since purchasing the building in 1994, defendants had replaced the roof, replaced the gutter system along at least one side of the building and recoated part of the roof with tar. Defendant Timothy J. Charest, who was responsible for managing the property, testified that the gutter system was on the building when defendants purchased the property, but also testified that “if there were problems with a gutter” on the side of the building containing the apartment entrances, “there were repairs made,” though he could not remember when any such repairs had been made. Charest testified that he inspected the property approximately weekly, as well as after every storm. He did not keep records of his inspections but would do them on a weekday; plaintiff’s accident occurred on a Friday evening. Neither defendant could specifically identify when he had last inspected the property. Harkins v Tuma, 2020 NY Slip Op 02145, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

CORNELL DID NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES IN ITS STUDENT CODE TO REFUSE ADMISSION TO PETITIONER WHO OMITTED FROM HIS APPLICATION THE FACT HE HAD BEEN EXPELLED FROM ANOTHER COLLEGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent Cornell did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it refused to enroll petitioner because petitioner did not reveal he had been expelled from Kansas State for violations of its code of conduct. Petitioner argued Cornell did not follow the provisions in its Code when it refused to enroll petitioner. But the Third Department held the Code applied only to “students” and not to those who were filling out an application for admission:

In reviewing a determination rendered by a private educational institution where no hearing is required, a court will not disturb it “unless a school acts arbitrarily and not in the exercise of its honest discretion, it fails to abide by its own rules or imposes a penalty so excessive that it shocks one’s sense of fairness” … . Petitioner argues that respondent was obliged to follow the provisions of the Code, which establishes standards of conduct for, as is relevant here, its students. A student is defined under the Code as a person “currently registered” with respondent in one of its divisions or as a special student, “currently enrolled in or taking classes” with respondent, “currently using” respondent’s facilities or property for academic purposes or “currently on leave of absence or under suspension from being a student.” Inasmuch as petitioner was none of those things when he misrepresented his academic background on an application for admission to respondent, neither the Code nor the procedures created by it were applicable to his misconduct, and Supreme Court erred in concluding that they were … . Matter of Kamila v Cornell Univ., 2020 NY Slip Op 02150, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

, ,

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY ALLOWED TO ADOPT THE NEGLECT PETITION AFTER THE PETITIONER REQUESTED THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the attorney for the child (AFC) was properly allowed to proceed with the neglect petition after the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition. However the evidence of educational and medical neglect was insufficient:

… [W]e perceive no error or abuse of discretion in Family Court declining to dismiss the petitions and allowing the attorney for the children to adopt the petitions and proceed on them (see Family Ct Act § 1032 [b] …). Turning to the merits, as relevant here, a party seeking to establish neglect must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a child’s “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his [or her] parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying [him or her] with adequate . . . education in accordance with the provisions of part one of article [65] of the [E]ducation [L]aw, or medical . . . care, though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” … . Matter of Abel XX. (Jennifer XX.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02129, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

,

DENYING VISITATION TO MOTHER WHO HAD NOT SEEN THE CHILD IN NINE YEARS BUT HAD GAINED EMPLOYMENT AND STOPPED ABUSING DRUGS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; FAMILY COURT GAVE UNDUE WEIGHT TO THE FORENSIC EVALUATOR’S FINDINGS AND TO MOTHER’S EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS AT THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the denial of visitation to mother in this modification-of-visitation proceeding was not supported by the evidence. Mother had not seen the child in nine years but demonstrated she was employed and had stopped abusing drugs. Family Court gave undue weight to the findings of a forensic evaluator and to mother’s emotional state during the hearing:

In our view, the forensic evaluator essentially acquiesced to the father’s preferences that the child have no contact with the mother and, in effect, gave them a higher priority over any court directive. Any unwillingness by the father to facilitate visitation does not demonstrate that the child’s welfare would be placed in harm if visitation between the mother and the child occurred and in no way rebuts the presumption that visitation with the mother is in the best interests of the child. In view of the flaws in the forensic evaluator’s report, it should have been given minimal consideration.In our view, the forensic evaluator essentially acquiesced to the father’s preferences that the child have no contact with the mother and, in effect, gave them a higher priority over any court directive. Any unwillingness by the father to facilitate visitation does not demonstrate that the child’s welfare would be placed in harm if visitation between the mother and the child occurred and in no way rebuts the presumption that visitation with the mother is in the best interests of the child. In view of the flaws in the forensic evaluator’s report, it should have been given minimal consideration.

Family Court also found that the mother could not control her emotions during the trial. Although we do not discount a parent’s emotional stability as one factor in the best interests analysis, there was little evidence, if any, indicating that the mother displayed the same emotional outbursts either with the children that she had just regained custody of or outside the courtroom setting. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, any inability of the mother to control her emotions at the hearing has little relevance … . Matter of Jessica D. v Michael E., 2020 NY Slip Op 02133, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

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