You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

CLAIMANT, WHO WAS ON THE JOB OUT-OF-TOWN, WAS INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING FROM HIS HOTEL TO WHERE THE EMPLOYEES PICKED UP THEIR TRUCKS; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER THE TRAVELING EMPLOYEE EXCEPTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries stemming from a traffic accident on his way to the site where the employees pickup up their bucket trucks for tree-trimming work. Claimant was working about five or six hours from his home and his employer was paying a portion of his hotel costs. The traffic accident occurred when claimant was driving from the hotel to where the trucks were kept:

Under the traveling employee exception, “injuries to a traveling employee may be compensable even if the employee at the time of the accident was not engaged in the duties of his [or her] employment,” provided that the employee is engaged in a reasonable activity … . We are not persuaded by the carrier’s contention that the Board erred in applying this exception. The Board observed that claimant was working in an area about a 5½-to 6-hour drive from home. Although the employer’s supervisor testified that claimant was not required to stay at the hotel, he agreed that it would not have been practical for claimant to commute from home. All of claimant’s coworkers, including the general foreman, stayed at the hotel. Under these circumstances, the Board determined that claimant’s status as an employee continued throughout his stay away from home. As claimant was engaged in a reasonable activity at the time of the accident, the record provides substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment … . Matter of Wright v Nelson Tree Serv., 2020 NY Slip Op 02312, Third Dept 4-20-20

 

, ,

SERVICES PROVIDED TO A DISABLED MAN BY THE NYS OFFICE OF PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COULD NOT BE CURTAILED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FUNDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the NYS Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) was properly prohibited from curtailing services to and disabled man, M,D., because of a lack of funds:

Even if the catch-all of “any other relevant considerations advanced by the parties” (OPWDD Policy and Procedures, Topic No. CP-10 [Rev (Feb. 1995)], at 4, ¶ 10) includes a provider agency’s financial difficulties connected to the provision of services to an individual, the Hearing Officer noted that petitioner “may well have valid fiscal concerns,” but concluded that it would not be proper or in M.D.’s best interest to discharge him on the basis of a lack of funding. We acknowledge the conundrum raised by petitioner — that providers face a difficulty in providing excellent services to a population with special needs but with no avenue of relief to help them financially when those services are more expensive than expected or than the maximum allowed under the HCBS [Home Community Based Services] waiver program. While we applaud providers such as petitioner for striving to provide excellent services to an underserved population, and are cognizant of their frustration when they deem the funding available for such services to be inadequate, the remedy must be for the service providers to apply to or lobby the relevant agencies, the Legislature or the Governor to provide more funding; the answer cannot be that administrative agencies or courts should allow service providers to simply discharge individuals with developmental disabilities from their services whenever the providers deem them too expensive. Based on consideration of the relevant factors, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination that it was not reasonable to allow petitioner to discharge M.D. from its program. Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities, 2020 NY Slip Op 02301, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

, ,

OWNER OF A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLED ON SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY WAS ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM REAL PROPERTY TAX DESPITE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S RESOLUTION OPTING OUT OF THE EXEMPTION; THE RESOLUTION WAS NEVER FILED AS REQUIRED BY THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner, Laertes Solar, the owner of a solar energy system installed on school district property, was entitled to the statutory exemption from property tax on the system. The school district had adopted a resolution opting out of the exemption. But the resolution had never been filed with the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) or the NYS Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSEARDA) as required by the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL 487):

The … examination of “the language of the statute and the legislative intent underlying it” … leads us to agree with Supreme Court that the filing requirements of RPTL 487 (8) are mandatory and that the 2014 resolution was inapplicable to the system given the school district’s failure to meet those requirements during the relevant period (see RPTL 487 [8] [a]). Indeed, although we need not defer to the Department’s interpretation of RPTL 487 given that this case presents a question “of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent”… , it is notable that the Department has also taken the position that an opt-out resolution “must be filed” with both it and NYSERDA … . It follows that — even assuming that the system may be viewed as a distinct parcel of real property that may be taxed — Laertes was entitled to the RPTL 487 exemption for which it applied (see RPTL 487 [6]). Matter of Laertes Solar, LLC v Assessor of the Town of Harford, 2020 NY Slip Op 02302, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

, , , ,

THE APPEAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY DEFENDANT’S TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER SUPREME COURT RULED DEFENDANT HAD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed the appeal as moot. Property which had been validly foreclosed by defendant was transferred to a third party. Plaintiff had brought an action pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) Article 15 to determine its rights to a portion of the foreclosed property. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for strict foreclosure (RPAPL 1352) and plaintiff appealed. The appeal was deemed moot and dismissed because defendant had a right to transfer the property after Supreme Court’s ruling:

[T]he jurisdiction of this Court extends only to live controversies and, as such, an appeal will be considered moot unless an adjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties” … . “Since the ability to transfer clear title is a natural incident of [property] ownership, it follows that when a complaint involving title to or the right to possess and enjoy real property has been dismissed on the merits and there is no outstanding notice of pendency or stay, the property owner has a right to transfer or otherwise dispose of the property unrestricted by the dismissed claim” … . “‘[A] purchaser’s actual knowledge of litigation and a pending appeal is not legally significant and[,] absent a validly recorded notice of pendency, an owner has the ability to transfer clear title'” … .

Here, Supreme Court canceled plaintiff’s notice of pendency and this Court denied his motion for a stay pending appeal. Therefore, defendants had the right to transfer the property when they did, and the purchaser obtained clear title despite its knowledge of the pending appeals. Govel v Trustco Bank, 2020 NY Slip Op 02306, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

,

MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily discontinue the foreclosure action (CPLR 3217(b)) was properly granted without prejudice. The litigation was still in the early stages and, although defendant had interposed a counterclaim, defendant did not move for a default judgment within a year and thereby abandoned the counterclaim:

Although this action had been pending for approximately three years at the time of the motion, the litigation itself remained in its early stages. In addition, the record confirms that defendant never sought default nor moved to compel discovery. Furthermore, the parties had not yet participated in the mandatory settlement conference (see CPLR 3408). Indeed, determination of plaintiff’s motion was the first occasion where Supreme Court was called upon to intervene in this action. Although defendant alleged that she would sustain prejudice if her discovery went unanswered, Supreme Court correctly determined that there was no evidence of prejudice to defendant or other improper consequences flowing from the discontinuance, as the parties can engage in necessary discovery in a subsequent foreclosure action … . …

… [T]he interposition of a counterclaim in and of itself is not dispositive with respect to the discontinuance. The discontinuance must work a particular prejudice against a defendant. Here, defendant is not prejudiced, as she will be able to assert her counterclaim in a subsequent foreclosure action. Although defendant argues that “one’s home is an interest that is unquantifiable,” she will be able to continue to reside in the mortgaged premises pending another action and will have the same rights available to her as were in the discontinued action … . Green Tree Servicing LLC v Shiow Fei Ju, 2020 NY Slip Op 02307, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

,

AFTER THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE SCENE AND AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SEATED IN THE BACK OF THE POLICE CAR, THE OFFICER ASKED DEFENDANT “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined statements made by defendant when he was handcuffed in the back of a police car should have been suppressed. The officer (Nellis) asked the defendant “What happened?” after the initial investigation was over:

After Nellis arrived at the scene and discovered defendant in the driveway, he entered the residence and found the victim being treated by defendant’s mother. The victim was convulsing and making gurgling sounds, and Nellis observed bruises and dried blood on her face. Nellis radioed emergency services to respond immediately, exited the residence and informed defendant that he was being detained for questioning. The officer did not immediately ask defendant what happened, but, after defendant was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of the patrol car, Nellis asked defendant, “What happened?” In response, defendant told him that he “snapped” and he “wanted her to feel the pain he had.” Defendant also admitted, “I choked her with a rope but never struck her in the face.” County Court allowed the statements, reasoning that the purpose of Nellis’ questioning was to clarify the nature of the volatile situation rather than to elicit evidence of a crime. We disagree.

The incident had been completed, the parties had been identified and medical assistance requested; defendant had been cooperative and responsive. “[W]here criminal events have been concluded and the situation no longer requires clarification of the crime or its suspects, custodial questioning will constitute interrogation” … . …

We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that these statements did not contribute to defendant’s conviction and, as such, the error was not harmless. People v McCabe, 2020 NY Slip Op 02288, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY; INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant was not accorded a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear before the grand jury and affirmed the dismissal of the indictment:

… [T]he People were required pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to “accord . . . defendant a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness” before the grand jury. The statute “does not mandate a specific time period for notice; rather ‘reasonable time’ must be accorded to allow a defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before a [g]rand [j]ury” … . As County Court duly recognized, defendant had no such opportunity, for the order assigning counsel was not initially provided to [the conflict defender] by the local court. Defendant, who remained incarcerated, was in no position to know that the appointment order had been misdirected. Nor did the generic presentment notice issued by the People … clarify matters, as it was sent to a number of attorneys, including [the conflict defender]. The People contend, nonetheless, that defendant had an opportunity to testify after the grand jury vote but before the indictment was filed pursuant to CPL 150.5 (5) (a). That contention is unavailing because, under the circumstances presented, defendant was deprived of an opportunity to testify before the grand jury voted … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 02204, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACTED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES FROM THE BREAKDOWN OF EQUIPMENT IN THIS BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff did enough to mitigate damages stemming from the two-day breakdown of a concrete mixer. Plaintiff manufactured and sold precast concrete products:

… [D]efendant relied upon a policy provision that required plaintiff to reduce its losses by undertaking efforts to “[m]ake up for lost business within a reasonable period of time” and “[m]ake use of every reasonable means to reduce or avert loss, including . . . [w]orking extra time or overtime.” Defendant argued that plaintiff failed to make up for the lost production by scheduling extra shifts or weekend work and, thus, failed to mitigate its losses as required by the policy.

Like any other policy provision, mitigation requirements in business interruption insurance policies must be enforced according to their terms … . Here, plaintiff’s president testified that it could not use extra shifts during the work week to make up for lost production due to the nature of its manufacturing process, and that various constraints related to that process and plaintiff’s labor force made it so difficult to schedule weekend work that plaintiff rarely did so. Plaintiff thus limited most of the weekend work that it did schedule to small projects requiring only a few employees. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we find that the reasonableness of plaintiff’s decision to make up for the lost production during its normal work hours rather than by scheduling overtime shifts on subsequent weekends, as well as the effect of this decision on the amount of its damages, present factual issues that must be resolved by a factfinder … . Binghamton Precast & Supply Corp. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 02214, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

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

 

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