You are here: / PETITIONER SOUGHT RECORDS FROM THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC)...

Search Results

/ , ,

PETITIONER SOUGHT RECORDS FROM THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC) TO DETERMINE HOW THE COMMISSION WAS HANDLING LICENSE APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS; THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for records from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), including fitness interview decisions (FID”s) should not have been denied. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the records:

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) (18 USC § 2721 et seq.) does not impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all motor vehicle records. Instead, the law restricts disclosure of “personal information,” which includes personal identifiers of the type that petitioner agrees should be redacted. Moreover, even as to such personal information, the DPPA still expressly provides for disclosure in various circumstances, such as for research purposes, where the personal information will not be further disclosed … . Motor vehicle records under the DPPA are thus not the kind of records as to which production is absolutely prohibited, as long as they are redacted … .

The record is not clear as to what extent it is possible to anonymize production of the TLC fitness interview decisions (FIDs), which petitioner seeks in order to assess whether the TLC has been applying fair standards in its decision making on licensing determinations with respect to people with one or more criminal convictions … . Matter of Brooklyn Legal Servs. v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 2022 NY Slip Op 00809, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/ , ,

THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE IT ACCRUED WHEN DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED UPON ARRAIGNMENT, NOT WHEN HE WAS RELEASED UPON COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the false imprisonment cause of action was untimely because it accrued when plaintiff was released upon arraignment, not when he was released after completing his sentence:

Contrary to the motion court’s finding, the statute of limitations began to run not on the date on which plaintiff was released from incarceration, having completed his sentence, but on the date of his arraignment, when he was released on his own recognizance … . False imprisonment consists of detention without legal process and ends once the accused is held pursuant to legal process, such as arraignment … . Plaintiff’s incarceration following his conviction is not part of his false imprisonment claim and thus is not relevant to determining the date of expiration of the limitations period for the claim. Butler v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00810, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact in this employment discrimination case:

Plaintiff, an African American female, raises triable issues of fact whether her October 2017 termination (adverse employment action) was in retaliation for her verbal complaints (protected activity) concerning racist comments defendant Annie Liu allegedly uttered at work … . A question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff complained in July or August 2017. If plaintiff’s testimony is credited, the time frame between the discriminatory comments, plaintiff’s complaints, and her firing is evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination two months later … . Contrary to defendants’ argument, it is unclear from the record whether an intervening event occurred to dispel an inference of a causal relationship. Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff’s employment was pretextual … . Cancel v Global Fertility & Genetics, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00811, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/ , ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification in this rent overcharge action should not have been denied. The tenants alleged the landlord unlawfully deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Class certification was improperly denied. The determination of whether plaintiffs have a cause that may be asserted as a class action turns on the application of CPLR 901. That section provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all” where five factors — sometimes characterized “as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) and thus establishing entitlement to certification … .

Here, plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, plaintiffs established numerosity and typicality in their initial motion for class certification. The allegations in the amended complaint taken with the DOF tax bills showed that by June 2017, only 8 of 100 apartments were registered as rent-stabilized. … [T]his Court [has] held that similar bills were sufficient to establish numerosity, i.e., the number of deregulated units. As to typicality, the predominant legal question involves one that applies to the entire class—whether defendant unlawfully deregulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving J-51 real estate tax abatement benefits. Cupka v Remik Holdings LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00812, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/

PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN ROMANIA; THE RESULTS OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION MAY BE DISPOSITIVE IN THE NEW YORK ACTION; THE NEW YORK ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK ACTION WAS COMMENCED FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Count, stayed the New York action pending the resolution of a related action brought by the defendant in Romania. the fact that the New York action was commenced first didn’t matter:

In March 2021, plaintiff brought this action to recover on a personal guaranty executed by defendant as consideration for a loan by plaintiff to two Romanian companies partly owned by defendant. Two months later, defendant brought suit against the instant plaintiff in Romania, seeking a declaration that the companies’ payment obligations under the underlying loan agreements were not enforceable.

… [T]he issues to be decided in the Romanian action are potentially dispositive of this action … . …

Although this action was filed first, chronology is not dispositive, “particularly where both actions are at the earliest stages of litigation” … . “[T]he practice of determining priorities between pending actions on the basis of dates of filing is a general rule, not to be applied in a mechanical way, regardless of other considerations” … . Here, both actions are in the early stages and were commenced reasonably close in time and the later-filed action is more “comprehensive” and involves more parties … . E D & F Man Sugar Ltd. v Gellert, 2022 NY Slip Op 00813, first Dept 2-8-22

 

/ ,

THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MAY REQUIRE SUCH ACCESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, a disabled wheelchair user, had standing to bring a discrimination action against defendant restaurant alleging the third floor of the restaurant was not accessible. The fact that the NYC Building Code did not require disabled-access to the third floor based on the square-footage did not conflict with the Human Rights Law which may require access:

The Building Code and disability discrimination laws serve different purposes and can easily be enforced and harmonized. The Building Code serves foremost to ensure safety in construction and maintenance of structures. The accessibility provision at issue simply states that no disabled access is required for building areas which measure less than 2,500 square feet. The provision does not prohibit building owners from providing such access — it simply provides that, for purposes of the Building Code, no such access is required.

The disability discrimination laws are designed, as pertinent here, to ensure that disabled persons have reasonable access to public accommodations. While the Building Code might not require disabled access under the circumstances present here, this does not mean that more may not be required under the State and City Human Rights Laws’ (HRLs) disability discrimination provisions. In this, there is no conflict. To the extent there is any tension between the Building Code’s provisions and the HRLs, such tension may be remedied by the rule of reasonableness which is an integral component of the HRLs’ requirement that disabled persons be reasonably accommodated (see Executive Law § 296[c][i]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][b]). Jones v McDonald’s Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00814, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on ice and snow on a passageway which had not been cleared of ice and snow:

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners, general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide “reasonable and adequate protection” to workers engaged in construction, demolition, and excavation activities by complying with Industrial Code regulations that specify concrete safety directives, regardless whether they exercised supervision or control over the work … . Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) provides that employers shall not allow any employee to use a “floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform, or other elevated work surface which is in a slippery condition,” and specifically enumerates ice and snow as foreign substances that must be removed, sanded, or covered. Plaintiff was allegedly injured at the construction site where he was working when he slipped and fell on snow and ice after he had passed through a perimeter gate, towards his employer’s shanty nearby upon arriving for work one morning. Defendant construction manager … testified the shanty area “was commonly used as a roadway for egress” and an “egress path” for workers going from the office trailers on one side of the shanties to the building under construction. Although it is unclear on this record whether there was a defined path where plaintiff fell, it is also unclear whether he was within the “shanty area” that was used as a “roadway for egress” and an “egress path.” Accordingly, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was in a defined walkway within the meaning of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) … . Lapinsky v Extell Dev. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 00815, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/ , ,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSINCERE PROMISE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN REPLY AND WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINATIVE, DID NOT ALLEGE NEW FACTS, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not support a cause of action for fraud in the inducement. Plaintiff ordered an artistic silk floral display but rejected it when delivered on the ground the display did not match what plaintiff ordered. Defendants refused to refund the money. Although the inadequacy of the fraud in the inducement allegations was first raised in reply, the First Department considered it because it was determinative, did not allege new facts and could not have been avoided if raised below:

As for the fraud in the inducement claim, defendants challenged this claim in their reply brief in Supreme Court. While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered … , this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants’ moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue … . Here, plaintiff merely alleged that defendants “grossly misrepresented the quality and nature of the Decorations” to induce plaintiff into retaining them and compensating them, and the representations were false when made. This simply alleges “an insincere promise of future performance under the contract, which is insufficient to plead fraud” … . As such, the fraud in the inducement claim is dismissed. Newport E. Inc. v Sviba Floral Decorators, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00819, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/

THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER COUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the second-degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the first-degree murder counts:

As the People concede, the second-degree murder counts should be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the first-degree murder counts (see CPL 300.40[3][b]). People v Ortega, 2022 NY Slip Op 00828, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/ ,

THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA AND FURTIVE MOVEMENTS INSIDE THE VEHICLE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE BY BLOCKING IT WITH THE POLICE CAR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the police did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion” to justify the seizure of defendant’s vehicle by blocking it with the police car:

… [T]he police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure of the vehicle, and therefore County Court erred in refusing to suppress both the physical property seized from defendant and the vehicle, as well as inculpatory statements made by defendant during booking following his arrest. … [W]e conclude that the police officers effectively seized defendant’s vehicle when they parked their patrol vehicle in such a manner that, for all practical purposes, prevented defendant from driving his vehicle away … . Furthermore, we conclude that the People did not have “reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime” to justify their seizure of the vehicle inasmuch as the seizure was based only on defendant’s presence in a vehicle parked in a high crime area, and on the police officers’ observation of furtive movements inside the vehicle … . People v Jennings, 2022 NY Slip Op 00755, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

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