You are here: / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case was properly denied. Although the defendant, under the administrative code of NYC, did not have a duty to remove ice and snow from the site of the fall, it did undertake to do so. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, the defendant must present proof it did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition:

… [Defendant] failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it did not cause, create, or exacerbate the icy condition after it undertook to clean the sidewalk during the winter storm. Neither the testimony of the property’s caretaker nor the affidavit of the supervisor of caretakers’s indicates that they inspected the location before the accident and saw that it was properly treated with salt or sand … . Maynard-Keeler v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03322, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ICE AND SNOW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SLIP AND FALL,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff physician’s complaint alleging he was terminated in retaliation for his disagreement with defendant hospital corporation’s policy concerning the testing of residential drinking water for patients diagnosed with Legionnaire’s disease stated a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law 741:

[Plaintiff] disagrees with the public position taken by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that the bacteria was found only in cooling towers and not in residential drinking water, and reasonably believes that the practice of not testing the residential drinking water of the patients constituted “improper quality of patient care.

Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the notice requirement set forth in Labor Law § 741(3). Under that provision, an employee may not bring an action “unless the employee has brought the improper quality of patient care to the attention of a supervisor and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct such activity, policy or practice”… . Although the statutory language expressly contemplates an affirmative act of objection to a policy or practice, strict compliance with the requirement here “would not serve the purpose of the statute” … . In view of the allegations that plaintiff’s supervisors had directed him to stop testing residential drinking water of the patients, and to not associate himself with the hospital if he insisted on continuing to do so, any express objections to the practice or policy would have been futile. Further, the fact that plaintiff insisted on testing the water despite directives to stop shows that his supervisors were aware, and therefore had notice, of his objection. Skelly v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03329, First Dept 5-8-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PATIENT CARE, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/PATIENT CARE (LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW 741 (PATIENT CARE, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/RETALIATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/DRINKING WATER (LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE (PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))

/

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have placed defendant in a judicial diversion program in this cocaine-sale case. Defendant’s need for money to support his marijuana use qualified him for diversion, despite his prior completion of a drug treatment program:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to participate in the judicial diversion program. The court based this determination on the erroneous ground that defendant had failed to establish that his “substance abuse or dependence [wa]s a contributing factor to [his] criminal behavior” (CPL 216.05[3][b][iii]). “The statute does not require that a defendant’s . . . substance abuse or dependence be the exclusive or primary cause of the defendant’s criminal behavior,” but “only requires that it be a contributing factor” … . In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to selling cocaine to an undercover police officer for $300, and was found carrying that amount in prerecorded buy money, an additional $880 in cash, and three cell phones. Defendant reported that his heavy use of marijuana cost him about $50 to $60 per day. In light of these facts and other particular circumstances of this case, defendant’s need for enough money to fund that habit evidently contributed to his criminal behavior of selling cocaine.

Accordingly, the court should order judicial diversion pursuant to CPL article 216, giving due recognition to the drug treatment program defendant has already completed. This result is consistent with one of the purposes of judicial diversion, which is to permit a defendant to achieve a disposition other than a felony conviction, where appropriate. People v Alston, 2018 NY Slip Op 03324, First Dept 5-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DIVERSION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIAL DIVERSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/DIVERSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCING (JUDICIAL DIVERSION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant insurance company’s connections to New York were insufficient to support long-arm jurisdiction:

[D]efendant … is incorporated in Canada, has its principal place of business in Canada, and is not authorized to do business in New York. Defendant issued a $10 million life insurance policy to a trust, designated on the policy application as the policy owner and beneficiary, which the record shows has its situs in New Jersey. The policy application was signed in New Jersey, and the receipt reflecting delivery of the policy identifies New Jersey as the place of execution. While the trustee may be a New York resident, he is neither the designated owner nor a beneficiary of the policy.

Plaintiff cites no authority to support its argument that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over defendant because the policy insured the life of a New York resident. Nor do defendant’s purported ties to New York suffice. Plaintiff points out that the medical portion of the application was signed in New York by the insured and the medical examiner and that, before it was delivered to the trustee, the policy passed through two New York intermediaries. These transactions are not only too fleeting to provide a jurisdictional foundation, but are also not the acts from which plaintiff’s claims arise … . Even assuming, as the record suggests, that defendant assured plaintiff (which acquired ownership of the policy) of the incontestability of the policy by a letter faxed to a New York number, this is not sufficient to establish New York jurisdiction over defendant … . AMT Capital Holdings, S.A. v Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 2018 NY Slip Op 03318, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/LONG ARM JURISDICTION ( DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 302 (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department found that a defendant company, IAI, which operates in Israel, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under the theory that defendant IAINA, which operates in New York, was a department of IAI. The court explained the relevant criteria. The court further held that a common interest privilege (with respect to alleged defamatory remarks regarding the plaintiff, defendant IAINA’s employee) does not insulate defendant from the alleged breach of a contractual non-disparagement clause:

Defendants established that IAI North America, Inc. (IAINA), which does business in the State of New York, is not a mere department of IAI, which operates primarily in Israel, and therefore that jurisdiction over IAINA is not jurisdiction over IAI … . The key executive personnel of the subsidiary were not assigned to their positions by the foreign parent, the subsidiary trained its own personnel, the parent did not write and publish all of the sales literature used by the subsidiary, and the subsidiary prepared its own financial statements … . … While IAINA is a wholly owned subsidiary of IAI, common ownership is “intrinsic to the parent-subsidiary relationship and, by [itself], not determinative”… . IAINA showed that it observed corporate formalities. Nothing in plaintiff’s affirmation indicates that IAI interferes in the selection and assignment of IAINA’s executive personnel, and the CEO of IAINA denied this. He also denied that IAI controlled IAINA’s marketing and operational policies. Plaintiff claimed that IAI had control over the approval of IAINA’s annual budget during the 11 years he worked at IAINA. However, this does not suffice … . …

IAINA … contends that the cause of action for breach of a non-disparagement clause should be dismissed because, even if it made disparaging remarks about plaintiff (its former employee), the remarks were privileged. However, the common interest privilege it relies on — which is part of the law of defamation — does not apply to a claim for breach of a non-disparagement clause … . Wolberg v IAI N. Am., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03321, First Dept 5-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATIONS (JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAMATION (NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST,  A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should not have been granted. Although defendant foreign corporation did not have a place of business in New York County, it had designated New York County as the location of its business in its filing with the Secretary of State:

Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as “[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located” … . Wakefern’s designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County … . Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333, First Dept 5-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, CORPORATION LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/

LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined law office failure was not sufficient to justify granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default judgment:

… [P]laintiffs’ counsel affirmed that he had timely prepared opposition papers, but due to law office failure, the nature of which counsel failed to describe in any detail, the papers were never filed. Counsel affirmed that he was under the impression the motion was still being considered by the court when he happened to discover the default order. He further affirmed that, despite defendants’ sworn affidavits of service, he was never served with the notices of entry of the default order.

Here, in addition to the untimeliness of this CPLR 5015 motion to vacate, the bare and unsubstantiated assertions of law office failure are insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default … . Moreover, the record shows that plaintiffs had a prior pattern of dilatory conduct, indicating that the default was not an excusable isolated event or inadvertent error … Because plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to address whether they demonstrated a meritorious cause of action … . Fernandez v Santos, 2018 NY Slip Op 03326, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT,  MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE ( LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

/

ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that essential evidence in reply papers was properly considered by the court because a surreply was allowed:

 … [T]o support amending a personal injury complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death, plaintiffs were required to submit “competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged malpractice and the death of the original plaintiff” … . The affirmation of plaintiffs’ expert, which stated that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the decedent’s injury led to his death, was sufficient, for the purposes of CPLR 3025(b), to establish a causal connection between the decedent’s death and the originally alleged negligence by defendants … . Plaintiff’s submission of the expert’s affirmation on reply is not fatal to the motion, because defendant was permitted to submit a surreply. Frangiadakis v 51 W. 81st St. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03331, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, reversed the Appellate Division and sent the matter back to the Appellate Division for a factual determination whether the trial judge’s credibility assessment of a spectator who claimed to have overheard jurors speaking about the defendant in derogatory terms was supported by the weight of the evidence. After questioning the spectator the trial judge determined no further inquiry was required. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s conviction over a dissent:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it chose not to conduct an inquiry of two sworn jurors pursuant to People v Buford (69 NY2d 290 [1987]). Alerted to a complaint by a courtroom spectator that during a break in the trial the spectator allegedly overheard the jurors refer to defendant by a derogatory term, the trial court immediately called the spectator to the stand and elicited sworn testimony regarding her allegation. At the conclusion of the examination, the judge determined that a Buford inquiry was not required based on the testimony provided. We conclude on this record that the trial court made an implied credibility finding that the spectator was not worthy of belief and therefore a Buford inquiry was not warranted. This determination by the trial court was not reviewed by the Appellate Division. It was error for the Appellate Division to opine as to what remedy was warranted in response to the content of the spectator’s allegation, without determining whether the allegation was credible in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Division order and remit the case to that Court to exercise its own fact-finding power to consider and determine whether the trial court’s finding as to the spectator’s credibility was supported by the weight of the evidence. * * *

If, on remittal, the Appellate Division finds, upon its own factual review, that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the spectator lacked credibility, no further action was required. If the Appellate Division finds that the credibility determination was not supported, it must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in not taking further action … . … [A] credible allegation that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve or engaged in substantial misconduct within the meaning of CPL 270.35 cannot be ignored by the trial court, and failure to appropriately remedy the matter is reversible error. People v Kuzdzal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03304, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BIAS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))

/ ,

EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a concurring opinion, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that a statement heard in the background of a 911 call should not have been admitted as an excited utterance. The statement ostensibly identified the defendant as the man who had just shot three people. Other than the defendant’s fingerprint found on the van the shooter got into, there was no evidence identifying the defendant as the shooter. Two trial judges had ruled the 911 statement inadmissible before a third trial judge allowed it to come in. The Court of Appeals held that the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit the third judge from ruling on the admissibility of the statement, but the statement was inadmissible because there was no evidence the declarant observed the shooting:

The decision to admit hearsay as an excited utterance is an evidentiary decision, “left to the sound judgment of the trial court”… , and thus may be reconsidered on retrial … . There is no reason to apply a different rule to a successor judge within the same trial and we, therefore, have no basis to adopt a per se rule prohibiting a substitute judge from exercising independent discretion concerning an evidentiary trial ruling.  * **

A “spontaneous declaration or excited utterance — made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event — which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant” is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay … . “The admission of a hearsay statement under any exception deprives the defendant of the right to test the accuracy and trustworthiness of the statement by cross-examination”… . Although hearsay, excited utterances may be admissible because, “as the impulsive and unreflecting responses of the declarant to the injury or other startling event, they possess a high degree of trustworthiness, and, as thus expressing the real tenor of said declarant’s belief as to the facts just observed by him, may be received as testimony of those facts”… . … “[I]t must be inferable that the declarant had an opportunity to observe personally the event described in the [spontaneous] declaration” … . Direct observation by the person making the excited utterance ensures that the declarant is in fact reacting to and “assert[ing] the circumstances of” the event causing the excitement … . People v Cummings, 2018 NY Slip Op 03306, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCITED UTTERANCE, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/EXCITED UTTERANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/LAW OF THE CASE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))

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