You are here: / THE DEFENDANT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE, AGODA, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO...

Search Results

/ , , ,

THE DEFENDANT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE, AGODA, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE IN PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE HOTEL; AGODA’S TERMS OF USE LIMITED LIABILITY TO THE BOOKING SERVICES AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AT THE HOTEL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant hotel booking service, Agoda, could not be compelled to arbitrate in this slip and fall action against the hotel booked through Agoda. The terms of use confined Agoda’s potential liability to the booking services and expressly excluded liability for personal injury:

A “party cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration unless the agreement to arbitrate expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute” … . Where arbitration provisions do not clearly and unequivocally provide that questions about the scope of the arbitration provisions are for the arbitration panel to determine, the threshold question whether the dispute is encompassed within an agreement to arbitrate is for the courts (CPLR 7503[b] …).

The arbitration clause in the terms of use covers “all disputes or claims arising out of or relating to your relationship with Agoda.” The terms of use also define Agoda’s role as providing a platform for individuals to browse information about accommodations and make reservations at accommodations. Furthermore, the terms of use make clear that “Agoda does not in any way . . . own, manage, operate or control” the accommodations and that Agoda will not be liable in damages for any “(PERSONAL) INJURY . . ., OR OTHER DAMAGES, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACCOMMODATION.” Because plaintiff’s claim is one to recover damages for a personal injury caused by the resort’s negligence, it does not arise from or relate to the relationship between plaintiff and Agoda, which was limited to plaintiff’s booking a reservation at the resort, and therefore is not arbitrable … .

As for Agoda’s motion to dismiss, the terms of use constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1), and the limitation of liability clause in the terms of use definitively disposes of plaintiff’s claim to recover damages from Agoda for personal injury caused by the resort’s alleged negligence … . McWashington v Hyatt Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 00050, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Here the hotel booking service’s terms of use expressly excluded liability for plaintiff’s personal injury at the hotel. Therefore the booking service could not be compelled to arbitrate in plaintiff’s slip and fall case.

 

/ , , , ,

PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PROPERTY OWNERS (LANDLORDS) MAY BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT OF THEIR AGENTS IN DEALING WITH PROSPECTIVE TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, determined the owners of housing accommodations may be vicariously liable (pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law) for discrimination by their agents who deal with prospective tenants. Here plaintiff is an indigent person with AIDS. The complaint alleges he was denied housing by defendant, who acted as an agent for defendant property owners:

… [A]bsent vicarious liability, landlords would evade liability under the City HRL except when they directly interact with a prospective tenant. This is neither the mandate of the statute, nor supported by the legislative intent behind § 8-107 of the City HRL … .

The text of the City HRL also supports the imposition of vicarious liability upon landlords. Specifically, the key statutory remedy in the City HRL for housing discrimination is to approve the rental and to provide housing (see Administrative Code § 8-120[a][7]). Moreover, §§ 8-122 and 8-502 permit a tenant allegedly aggrieved by discriminatory practices to seek injunctive relief. In the absence of vicarious liability against owners, who have title to the prospective property, these remedies would be unavailable and rendered meaningless … . Newson v Vivaldi Real Estate LTD., 2025 NY Slip Op 00052, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law, landlords may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of their agents in dealing with prospective tenants.

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not prove the officer who searched defendant’s person intended to arrest the defendant at the time of the search. Therefore the People did not prove the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest and the evidence should have been suppressed:

Defendant was entitled to suppression of the cocaine and money recovered in a search of his person, which occurred after officers pulled over the minivan in which he was a passenger for two traffic violations and detected a strong odor of marijuana as they approached the van. An officer saw loose marijuana on defendant’s lap, asked him to step out of the car, and immediately frisked him, finding a small plastic bag in defendant’s pocket and a significantly larger one inside the top of his underwear. The drugs were not recovered in a valid search pursuant to a lawful arrest because the record fails to show that the officer had any intention of arresting defendant before recovering the cocaine … . People v Aragon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00055, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Unless the People prove the officer who searched defendant’s person intended to arrest the defendant when the search was done, the search is not a valid search incident to arrest and suppression is required.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE THAT GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this scaffold-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Defendants argued that guardrails for the scaffold were available but plaintiff failed to use them. The First Department held that the evidence of the availability of the guardrails was not strong enough to raise a question of fact:

“Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident” … . Caselaw has not further defined the meaning of “readily available,” beyond qualifying that a safety device need not be “in the immediate vicinity.” Nonetheless, the seminal Gallagher case itself specifies that the worker should at least “kn[o]w where to find the safety devices” … . Conversely, a defendant may do much to show that safety devices were readily available by showing that the worker knew “exactly where they could be found” … .

While defendants indicated that workers were generally aware that railings were available throughout the site, defendants failed to show that their precise locations were made known to the workers. The affidavits of the three foremen and coworker are conclusory, the record does not specify or even approximate the location of the guardrails, and at oral argument, counsel was unable to specify where these safety devices could be found. Moreover, although the record contains photos of the subject scaffold, there are no photographs of the missing guardrails that might serve as a guide to their possible location. Defendant’s proof demonstrated only “[t]he general availability of safety equipment at a work site [which] does not relieve the defendants of liability” … . Perez v 1334 York, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00066, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Although a defendant may escape liability in a Labor Law 240(1) action if the plaintiff failed to use available safety equipment, proof of the “general availability” of the safety equipment does not raise a question of fact. The proof of available safety equipment must be specific. Here there was no evidence the defendants even knew where the safety devices were.

 

/ , ,

THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THE LANDLORD COULD HAVE DEMANDED PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE LEASE, NOT WHEN THE DEMAND WAS ACTUALLY MADE YEARS LATER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract (here, a lease) started running when a demand for payment could have been made, not when the demand was actually made:

… [A]lthough the motion court awarded the entirety of the amounts of unpaid additional rent going back to 2006, the landlord’s inexplicable delay in asserting these counterclaims until September 13, 2019 rendered the amounts that accrued before September 13, 2013 time-barred (CPLR 213[2]). The law is well settled that the statute of limitations on breach of contract claims begin to run “when the party that was owed money had the right to demand payment, not when it actually made the demand” … . Because the limitations period cannot be extended “by simply failing to make a demand” … , the judgment must be reduced to include only those amounts that accrued on or after September 13, 2013, and we remand for the calculation of the proper award and commensurate reduction in statutory interest. Abarrotes Mixteca Corp., Inc. v Brisk, 2025 NY Slip Op 00034, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: For a breach of contract, the statute of limitations begins to run when the party can demand payment pursuant to the contract, not when the demand is actually made. The statute of limitations cannot be extended by failing to make a demand.

 

/ ,

THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST “ASSISTED LIVING” AS OPPOSED TO “RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE” FACILITIES; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMSSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Public Health Law does not create a right of private action against an “assisted living facility” as opposed to a “residential health care facility.” Here the plaintiff attempted to sue the defendant assisted living facility for alleged deficiencies and the complaint was properly dismissed:

Public Health Law § 2801-d creates a private right of action distinct from traditional claims for medical malpractice and negligence, and it provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny residential health care facility that deprives any patient of said facility of any right or benefit, as hereinafter defined [in Public Health Law article 28], shall be liable to [the] patient for injuries suffered as a result of said deprivation” (Public Health Law § 2801-d [1] …). A residential health care facility is defined, in turn, as “a nursing home or a facility providing health-related service” (Public Health Law § 2801 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2801 [4] [b]).

An assisted living facility, in contrast, is governed by Public Health Law article 46-B instead of Public Health Law article 28, being defined as a facility that “provides or arranges for housing, on-site monitoring, and personal care services and/or home care services (either directly or indirectly), in a home-like setting to five or more adult residents unrelated to the assisted living provider” (Public Health Law § 4651 [1]). DeRusso v Church Aid of the Prot. Episcopal Church in the Town of Saratoga Springs, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: The statutory private right of action created by the Public Health Law for suits against “residential health care facilities” does not apply to “assisted living facilities.”

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO “NEW FACTS” WERE DEMONSTRATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1) action, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew his summary judgment motion should not have been granted. Plaintiff was attempting to disassemble a freezer when the freezer roof collapsed and he fell to the floor:

Pursuant to CPLR 2221, a motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . In his motion for leave to renew and reargue, plaintiff sought to admit a supplemental expert affidavit in which plaintiff’s expert sought to clarify that accessing the freezer’s ceiling was an essential task of disassembly. Plaintiff averred that this information was not proffered before because he was not on notice that he needed to address the different tasks required for disassembly. However, our review of the original motion papers reveals that, not only did the expert’s original affidavit briefly address the need for plaintiff to climb on top of the freezer, but also that [defendant’s] affirmations in opposition were sufficient to put plaintiff on notice that the necessity of plaintiff’s work on the ceiling would be at issue … . Additionally, as plaintiff had already retained an expert, there was nothing preventing plaintiff from submitting additional evidence in reply to [defendant’s] affirmations in opposition, prior to the court’s original determination … .Therefore, Supreme Court improperly granted plaintiff’s motion to renew, and plaintiff’s supplemental expert affidavit should not be considered on summary judgment … . Burgos v Darden Rests., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point:  A motion to renew a summary judgment motion must be based upon new facts which could not have been addressed in the initial motion, not the case here.

/ , , , ,

REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the removal of the children from mother’s care without notice violated mother’s due process rights. In addition, the evidence did not support the removal:

… [P]ursuant to a dispositional order, the children were released to their mother’s care with ACS [Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services] supervision. ACS moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to extend the period of supervision. Family Court violated the mother’s due process rights when, on the return date of the motion, it sua sponte removed the children without giving the mother notice or an opportunity to be heard and, at a later hearing, effectively imposed upon the mother the burden of showing that the removal was unwarranted … . There was nothing in the language of the agency’s motion to put the mother on notice that the children might be removed from her care on the return date, and the record demonstrates that the mother was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue … . Moreover, the agency maintained that it was in the children’s best interests to remain with the mother, and the children’s attorney supported the agency’s position.

Furthermore, Family Court’s decision to continue the children’s placement in the agency’s care until the next placement hearing was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …  Contrary to the court’s conclusion, neither the initial neglect petition nor the order to show cause alleged that the mother used illicit substances or was impaired while taking care of the children. Moreover, during the 10-month period of supervision in 2023—2024, the mother submitted to at least three random drug screenings and tested negative for all illicit substances. When the mother underwent an evaluation by a credentialed alcohol and substance abuse counselor on February 1, 2024, she was not found to need any drug treatment services. Matter of E.I. (Eboniqua M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00022, First Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: Here removal of the children from mother’s care without prior notice to mother violated her due process rights. Removal was not supported by the evidence.

 

/ , ,

PROOF THE MORTGAGE WAS ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ALSO ASSIGNED BEFORE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to foreclosure. Plaintiff proved the assignment of the mortgage to it, but did not prove the assignment of the note. In addition, plaintiff did not prove it physically possessed the note which had been indorsed to it:

While plaintiff’s papers established that the original noteholder, nonparty Realty Closing Solution LLC, assigned the note to nonparty 1Sharpe Opportunity Intermediate Trust (1Sharpe) on June 24, 2019, plaintiff did not establish that 1Sharpe assigned the note to plaintiff before this action was commenced. Instead, plaintiff established that 1Sharpe assigned the mortgage to plaintiff. Without also assigning the note, the assignment of the mortgage, by itself, is of no incident because “a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity” … . …

… [P]laintiff did not establish that it physically possessed the note indorsed to it. Plaintiff relies on an allonge from 1Sharpe included with the note in the complaint. However, plaintiff furnished no evidence, either by producing the physical note or through the attestations of its affiant … that this allonge, which was indorsed in blank, was “firmly affixed” to the note (UCC 3-202[2]…). 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC v Harlem Premier Residence, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00016, First Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff demonstrated the mortgage was assigned to it but did not demonstrate the note was assigned to it before the action was commenced. Therefore the plaintiff did not prove it had standing to foreclose.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET SPOT ON THE MARBLE FLOOR IN THE CONDOMINIUM LOBBY DURING A SNOW STORM; THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM HAD PLACED RUBBER MATS ON THE FLOOR AND PERIODICALLY MOPPED WET SPOTS; THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE APPLIED; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant condominium was entitled to summary judgment in this wet-marble-floor slip and fall case. It was snowing at the time of the fall, triggering the storm-in-progress doctrine, and defendant had placed rubber mats on the floor and periodically mopped wet spots:

The condominium established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting certified weather reports demonstrating that there was an ongoing snowstorm at the time of accident, and that the “storm-in-progress” doctrine therefore applied … . The condominium demonstrated that it undertook reasonable maintenance measures to address the wet conditions created by tracked-in snow by laying rubber mats throughout the lobby, including an eight-foot runner from the building entrance to the elevator bank, as well as having the doorman and other staff dry mop any wet spots … . Although plaintiff’s accident took place on a small portion of the floor that was uncarpeted and remained uncovered, a defendant is not required under the “reasonable care” standard to cover all of its floors with mats to prevent someone from falling on moisture … . In response to the condominium’s prima facie showing, plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

The condominium also showed lack of actual notice of the specific wet condition that caused plaintiff to slip. The building’s doorman testified that he monitored the condition of the lobby throughout the day and would mop any wet spot, and plaintiff admitted that she did not see any wet condition on the floor when she left the building 15 minutes earlier … . Similarly, because the water might have been tracked in by plaintiff or by other residents entering the lobby, there is no basis for a finding of constructive notice … . Nor was the condominium’s general awareness that the floor might become wet while it was snowing sufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition that caused plaintiff’s injury … . Plaintiff’s opposition did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding notice…. . Hart v 210 W. 77 St. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06655, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: The storm-in-progress doctrine applied in this slip and fall case where plaintiff slipped on a wet spot on the lobby floor caused by tracked in snow during an snow storm.​

Practice Point: A general awareness that tracked-in snow will result in wet spots on a marble floor does not amount to constructive notice of the specific condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall.

 

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