New York Law Watch
Appellate Division, Third Department
The Third Department sits in Albany and hears appeals from twenty-eight upstate counties, together with appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and state agency determinations transferred to it. Attorney discipline for its district is also decided here.
For Appellate Division, Third Department, Law Watch lists 158 indexable decisions dated February 5, 2026 to November 12, 2026 across 16 decision weeks.
224 decision records: 158 meet the substance floor; 66 records are held from search listings.
Browse by year
Recent decisions
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Shujing Wang)2026 NY Slip Op 06611
The court granted the respondent’s motion for reinstatement after determining by clear and convincing evidence that she satisfied the requisite character and fitness standards. The court further found that reinstatement would be in the public interest, ordering her reinstatement effective immediately.
- In the Matter of the Estate of David Howansky, Deceased. Timothy Howansky, Appellant; David Howansky Jr. et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.2026 NY Slip Op 06604
The appeal is dismissed as moot because the successor executor resigned and an independent fiduciary was appointed, rendering the challenge to the appointment without practical consequences. Additionally, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party regarding the will’s probate because he consented to its admission.
- Cisario v Abele Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06603
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the Town’s motion to dismiss because the record was insufficient to determine if the written notice provided to a highway department employee satisfied the statutory requirement of notice to the town clerk or superintendent of highways. The court found that discovery was necessary to clarify the internal forwarding of the notice and the functional equivalent of the abolished superintendent position.
- Matter of Miles v New York City Tr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 06602
The Workers’ Compensation Board’s disallowance of the claimant’s right wrist occupational disease claim was supported by substantial evidence because the medical opinions relied upon were not based on an understanding of the claimant’s relevant medical history. Consequently, there was a dearth of credible medical proof establishing a causal link between the distinctive feature of his occupation and the right wrist condition.
- Matter of Hahnenfeld v Good Samaritan Hosp.2026 NY Slip Op 06601
The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of the claimant’s request to amend her claim to include Long COVID, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that she failed to prove a causal connection between her April 2020 work-related infection and her later symptoms. The court noted that the claimant’s second, non-work-related infection and preexisting conditions complicated the medical evidence regarding causality.
- Matter of Zero Waste Ithaca v Ithaca City Planning & Dev. Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 06600
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the planning board’s issuance of a negative declaration under SEQRA was not arbitrary or capricious. The court determined that the board adequately identified pertinent areas of environmental concern and took a hard look at the evidence regarding synthetic turf risks.
- Matter of Pasinkoff v New York State & Local Retirement Sys.2026 NY Slip Op 06599
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the Comptroller’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and not irrational or unreasonable. The agency reasonably interpreted the statutes to set the petitioner’s contribution cessation date at the effective date of his transfer from a tier 6 to tier 4 membership, rather than his initial enrollment date.
- Matter of Bailey v Caledonia Mumford Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 06598
The court affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits because the claimant failed to provide timely written notice of her injury to the employer. The Board’s determination that the employer was prejudiced by the delay and lacked adequate knowledge of the work-related injury was supported by the record.