You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the forfeiture of Thomas Jones’ vehicle for food vending without a license violated the Excessive Fines clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. The vehicle was worth $40,000, and the fine imposed for vending without a license was $2600:

The City … commenced this proceeding in Supreme Court pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 17-321(c) and 17-322 to seize and order forfeiture of Jones’ truck. Administrative Code § 17—321(a) permits both public health officials and the police to enforce food vending codes. Section 17-321(c)(iii) permits police or public health officials to seize a food vending vehicle being used by an unlicensed vendor and any food being offered for sale. If forfeiture proceedings are not commenced, the vendor may be charged with the “reasonable costs for removal and storage payable prior to the release of such food, vehicle or pushcart.” Section 17—322(a) provides for forfeiture of “all property seized” from unlicensed food vendors “[i]n addition to any penalties imposed” pursuant to Section 17-325. Section 17-325(a) provides that vending food without a license is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to three months, or both. Section 17-325(c) provides for additional fines for unlicensed food vendors.

The motion court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are questions of fact as to: (1) whether the forfeiture provision at issue is punitive in nature; and (2) whether the value of the property seized is so disproportional to the fines imposed and any harm to society that it violates the excessive fines clauses of the New York and United States Constitutions. We now affirm. City of New York v Jones, 2025 NY Slip Op 04842, First Dept 9-4-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of when forfeiture is deemed “punitive” in nature such that forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA” AND ASSESSED DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PARENT CORPORATION; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly applied the “pierce the corporate veil” criteria to assess damages for breach of contract against the defendant parent company:

“Because a decision to pierce the corporate veil in any given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, there are no definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when this power may be exercised” … . However, under the totality of the circumstances presented here, we conclude that plaintiffs met their heavy burden of showing that “[JAE] exercised complete domination of [J.A. Madison] in respect to the transaction attacked[,] [specifically the Consulting Agreement]” … . Thus, we will address the second prong of the test – namely, whether plaintiffs met their burden to show “that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff[s] which resulted in plaintiff[s’] injury” … . * * *

“Wrongdoing in this context does not necessarily require allegations of actual fraud. While fraud certainly satisfies the wrongdoing requirement, other claims of inequity or malfeasance will also suffice … . Allegations that corporate funds were purposefully diverted to make it judgment proof or that a corporation was dissolved without making appropriate reserves for contingent liabilities are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory … .

… The evidence presented at trial showed that JAE used its domination of J.A. Madison to commit a wrong against plaintiffs by stopping payments to plaintiffs under the Consulting Agreement, causing J.A. Madison to become judgment proof, and then by dissolving J.A. Madison after this action had already been commenced, making plaintiffs’ judgment against J.A. Madison nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. The fact that J.A. Madison may have initially been created for a legitimate purpose of operating a store selling Jonathan Adler merchandise and products does not change the analysis. Rich v J.A. Madison, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04818, First Dept 8-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion and the dissent for a comprehensive discussion of the criteria for piercing the corporate veil in the context of a breach of contract.

 

,

THE CONSENT-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS DWI CASE; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined the probation condition requiring defendant to consent to a search of his person or home was not warranted in this DWI case. Defendant was found asleep in his car, engine running, with a bottle of alcohol on the seat. He had twice before been convicted of DWI:

… [W]e hold that the consent-search condition imposed by the sentencing court is not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life. Initially, it is undisputed that defendant was not armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted. Defendant also has no history of violence or use of weapons and has never been convicted of an offense involving weapons … . * * *

… [T]he circumstances of defendant’s past use of illegal substances do not support a finding that the imposition of the consent-search condition was reasonably necessary to ensure that defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so, particularly where the frequency and magnitude of his use of illegal substances are unknown … . * * *

There are certain limited circumstances where alcohol becomes contraband for the purposes of the consent-search condition, such as when it is open and located in a running vehicle … . However, the consent-search condition is not limited to conform to these specific circumstances. Rather, the condition broadly authorizes warrantless searches of defendant’s person, vehicle and place of abode. This extensive reach into areas of defendant’s life where he may legally possess and consume alcohol is not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation or individually tailored in relation to the offense committed, especially considering that defendant will still be “checked up on” pursuant to the condition permitting unannounced visits from a probation officer at his residence or elsewhere, which he does not challenge … . People v Andrus, 2025 NY Slip Op 04817, First Dept 8-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision and dissent for insight into when a consent-search probation condition is warranted and when, as here, it is inappropriate.

 

,

THE VIOLATIONS OF EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) BASED ON FALSE “STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION” (SFC’S) SUBMITTED TO OBTAIN LOANS FOR TRUMP ENTITIES WERE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE RELATED “DISGORGEMENT” OF NEARLY HALF-A-BILLION DOLLARS WAS DEEMED AN EXCESSIVE FINE AND WAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in three decisions issued by a divided court with no majority, determined the defendants violated Executive Law section 63 (12) by submitting deceptive business records to banks, insurance companies, and the NYC Parks Department. The suit alleged, for example, President Donald Trump submitted false “statements of financial condition” (SFC”s) to banks to obtain better loans for Trump entities. Supreme Court had ordered “disgorgement” of nearly half-a-billion dollars. The First Department held the “disgorgement” was an improper, excessive “fine” and vacated it. The fraud-based violations of the Executive Law remain standing, however. All expect the case to go to the Court of Appeals:

Defendants appeal from two decisions (and the resulting judgment) holding that defendants violated Executive Law § 63(12) by repeatedly submitting deceptive business records to banks, insurance companies, and the New York City Parks Department.

Presiding Justice Renwick and I [Justice Moulton] find that Supreme Court correctly found defendants liable. We agree with Supreme Court that the Attorney General acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so. We also find that Supreme Court properly ruled only on claims that are timely under the applicable statute of limitations. However, we would modify the remedy ordered by Supreme Court. While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This decision is one of three issued by this Court today. Presiding Justice Renwick and I agree with our colleagues on certain points. Most importantly, we agree with Justice Higgitt, who is joined by Justice Rosado, that the Attorney General is empowered by Executive Law § 63(12) to bring this action. However, our remaining disagreements with our colleagues’ decisions are profound. In sum, Justice Friedman finds that Supreme Court’s rulings are infirm in almost every respect and would hold that the Attorney General had no power to bring this case under Executive Law § 63(12). He would dismiss the complaint outright. Justice Higgitt, while agreeing that the Attorney General had the power to bring this lawsuit, finds that errors made by Supreme Court require a new trial limited to only some of the transactions in question. * * *

Because none of the three decisions garners a majority, Justices Higgitt and Rosado join the decretal of this decision for the sole purpose of ensuring finality, thereby affording the parties a path for appeal to the Court of Appeals. People v Trump, 2025 NY Slip Op 04756, First Dept 8-21-25

Practice Point: Here “disgorgement” of nearly a half billion dollars for fraud-related violations of the Executive Law (stemming from submission of false “statements of financial condition” to obtain loans for Trump entities) was deemed an excessive fine and was vacated by the First Department.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY, LAYING OUT ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS IN GREAT DETAIL, AFFIRMED FAMILY COURT’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY RULING ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IGNORED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH CONFLICTED WITH AND CONTRADICTIED ITS RULINGS, LAYING OUT THAT EVIDENCE IN GREAT DETAIL; ESSENTIALLY THE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY DEMONSTRATES MOTHER DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE RELOCATION WAS IN THE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, affirmed Family Court’s modification of custody ruling allowing mother to relocate to Florida with the child. The dissenters argued the majority ignored evidence which conflicted with its findings, effectively finding relocation was in mother’s best interest, not the child’s. The dissent laid out, in detail, the evidence purportedly ignored by the majority and would have held mother did not meet her burden to prove relocation was in the best interest of the child:

From the dissent:

A parent’s request to relocate with the parties’ child has been described as one of “the knottiest and most disturbing problems that our courts are called upon to resolve” … . Foremost, a court’s role in resolving immensely personal family matters of this nature is to ensure that the final decision is in the best interest of the child and that its findings have a sound and substantial basis in the record, as that is the sine qua non of any credibility determination … . Therefore, the threshold issue here is not whether the Family Court’s credibility determinations should be disturbed as the majority posits. Rather, it is whether there is a substantial basis in the record to support the finding that granting the mother primary physical custody of the subject child and permission to relocate to Florida, served the child’s best interest … . In my opinion, the Family Court’s determination fails on both accounts, as the evidence clearly establishes that a predominant emphasis was placed on those facts and circumstances most likely to serve the mother’s best interest, rather than that of the child, thereby undermining the exact premise set forth in Matter of Tropea ([87 NY2d 727] at 740-741). As the mother has failed to establish that it would be in the child’s best interest to relocate to Florida under the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea …, I respectfully dissent. Matter of Jasmine M. v Albert M., 2025 NY Slip Op 04695, First Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: In this decision and in Matter of Kaius A. v Abigail H., 2025 NY Slip Op 04692, First Dept 8-14-25, the First Department is addressing concerns with the credibility determinations made by Family Court judges, raising the question whether starkly contradictory but credible proof should be analyzed in the context of whether the party seeking the relief has met the burden of proof.

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING THE FATHER’S CONTACT WITH HER AND THE CHILDREN; THE PROOF IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST MOTHER DID NOT MATCH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION; THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY AMENDED THE PETITION BY IMPROPERLY CONFORMING THE PETITION TO SERIOUSLY CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY PROOF; MOTHER WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THE “AMENDED” PETITION; NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the neglect finding against mother, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosada, determined there was insufficient support in the record for the judge’s resolution of conflicting evidence, which amounted to an amendment of the petition to conform to the proof. Mother was never given the opportunity to address the judge’s sua sponte amendment of the petition, a violation of due process. In addition, there was no proof mother was served with an order of protection prohibiting father’s contact with the children (it was alleged mother left the children in father’s care when she was hospitalized). The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] failed to adduce any proof of actual or imminent danger of physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the children in remaining in a home with the father and M.H. [paternal grandmother] during the mother’s brief hospitalization … . * * *

… Family Court unduly relied upon the contradictory testimony of Trazile [CPS worker] and M.H. in rendering its determination that respondent neglected the children. While credibility determinations of Family Court are normally accorded due deference … , the determination here “lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis,” and the court should have dismissed the petition (… see also Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). The court credited the testimonies of both Trazile and M.H., which together presented three markedly different and contradictory accounts of how the children came to be in M.H.’s care. Significantly, all three accounts are departures from the allegations set forth in the amended petition.

While the court is empowered sua sponte to conform the pleadings to the proof, as it arguably did here via its restatement of the allegations in its written decision, Family Ct Act § 1051(b) requires that in such cases, the respondent be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations, which was not done here … . “Absent additional allegations set forth in an amended petition that conforms to the proof with notice to the respondent, the court must not base a finding of neglect on allegations not set forth in the petition” … . Matter of Kaius A. v Abigail H., 2025 NY Slip Op 04692, First Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If Family Court is confronted with internally inconsistent and contradictory proof which does not match the allegations in the neglect petition, the petition should be dismissed.

Practice Point: If mother is accused of violating an order of protection, there must be proof she was served with the order.

Practice Point: Although Family Court has the power to sua sponte conform a neglect petition to the proof by issuing findings of fact, due process requites that mother be given the opportunity to address the “new” allegations in the “amended” petition.

 

,

A PLAINTIFF’S STIPULATED SETTLEMENT WITH THE INSURED ACCOMPANIED BY A COVENANT NOT TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT AND AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE INSURED’S CLAIMS AGAINST THE INSURER IS NOT A “RELEASE;” THE INSURER STILL HAS A DUTY TO INDEMNIFY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant insurer had a duty to indemnify plaintiffs under a policy issued to a bar sued by plaintiffs for using plaintiffs’ images without their consent. Plaintiffs had entered a settlement agreement with the bar which included a consent judgment in which plaintiffs agreed to forgo execution of the judgment in consideration for the bar’s assignment of its rights against the insurer. The insurer agued the settlement agreement constituted a release, extinguishing its obligation to indemnify. The First Department, in a matter of first impression, held the agreement was not a release and the insurer still had a duty to indemnify:

In New York, the legal ramifications of a general release in the context of an insured/insurer relationship are clear; a general release in favor of an insured abolishes any present or future duty of indemnification on the part of the insurer … . However, it appears that no New York precedent exists on the issue presented here: whether the insurer’s liability is maintained where, in settlement, a consent judgment is entered that incorporates an assignment of the insured’s rights against the insurer coupled with a covenant not to execute on the judgment. * * *

We conclude … that a stipulated judgment … accompanied by a covenant not to execute and an assignment of claims can be enforced against an insurer. Geiger v Hudson Excess Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 04609, First Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs settled with the insured in return for the assignment of the insured’s claims against the insurer. In a matter of first impression, the First Department held that the covenant not to execute the judgment against the insured (included in the settlement agreement) was not a “release” which extinguished the insurer’s duty to indemnify. The duty to indemnify remains.

 

, , ,

THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the breach of contract (commercial lease) cause of action against defendant limited liability companies which had purchased the assets of the original lessee (another limited liability company) should not have been dismissed. The majority concluded the complaint stated a cause of action under the theory that defendants constituted a “mere continuation” of the original lessee. The dissent argued the “mere continuation” theory does not apply where, as here, there are two purchasers of the original lessee’s assets:

… [W]e find that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract against [defendants] based on the “mere continuation” exception to the rule against successor liability. “Although no one factor is dispositive,” courts determining whether a successor corporation is a “mere continuation” of its predecessor have considered whether: (1) all or substantially all assets are transferred to the successor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation has been effectively extinguished following the transaction; (3) the successor has assumed an identical or nearly identical name; (4) the successor has retained one or more of the same corporate officers, directors, and/or employees; and (5) the successor has continued the same business … . * * *

Neither the motion court nor defendants cite to any authority prohibiting application of mere continuation successor liability where more than one company has acquired the assets of the predecessor. We disagree with the dissent to the extent that it asserts that Schumacher (59 NY2d 239) stands for the proposition that the existence of more than one successor corporation necessarily bars application of the mere continuation doctrine. In Schumacher, there was only one successor … . Accordingly, it does not address the situation in the facts pleaded by plaintiff in this case. Avamer 57 Fee LLC v Hunter Boot USA LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04607, First Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: The purchasers of a business which constitute a “mere continuation” of the seller’s business can be liable under a contract originally entered by the seller.

 

, , ,

IN A FORECLOSURE CONTEXT, THE BANK, WHEN MOVING FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, GETS TWO CHANCES TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY; IF THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS DEEMED INADEQUATE, THE BANK MUST BE ALLOWED TO TRY AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action should have been given a second opportunity to present evidence of the value of the property for purposes of a deficiency judgment:

A lender in a foreclosure action moving for a deficiency judgment “bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, the property’s fair market value as of the date of the auction sale” … . Upon a lender’s motion for a deficiency judgment, RPAPL 1371(2) provides, in part: “the court, whether or not the respondent appears, shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid in at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof and shall make an order directing the entry of a deficiency judgment.”

The Court of Appeals has interpreted this provision as “a directive that a court must determine the mortgaged property’s ‘fair and reasonable market value’ when a motion for a deficiency judgment is made. As such, when the court deems the lender’s proof insufficient in the first instance, it must give the lender an additional opportunity to submit sufficient proof, so as to enable the court to make a proper fair market value determination” … . Valley Natl. Bank v 252 W. 31 St. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04528, First Dept 7-31-25

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the bank is seeking a deficiency judgment it gets two shots at proving the value of the property.

 

, ,

THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT AND ATTEMPTED ROBBERY COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT; THE VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT DIDN’T HELP; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE HE WAS DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEO NEAR THE SCENE WEARING DISTINCTIVE RIPPED AND PATCHED PANTS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED BY THE VICTIM OR DEPICTED IN THE INCIDENT VIDEO; THE ARREST WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED AFTER GUILTY PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined defendant was arrested in the absence of probable cause requiring suppression of seized evidence and defendant’s statements. Several arguments raised by the People on appeal were not considered because the arguments were not made below. Defendant was accused of assault and attempted robbery of a woman on the street.. The woman was unable to describe the assailant. Video of the incident did not help. Video near the scene depicted a man with distinctive ripped and patched pants, which led to the arrest of the defendant 10 days later. But there was no evidence the assailant was wearing the distinctive pants:

The detective obtained clearer video that depicted a male individual in distinctive ripped and patched pants near the scene and heading northbound, but that video did not capture the attack (nor any other incriminating behavior, for that matter). The detective concluded that the man in the distinctive pants was the perpetrator, apparently due to temporal and geographical proximity. Notably, when shown stills from the footage, the victim was still unable to recognize defendant as her assailant. The detective did not recollect the complainant stating that her assailant fled northbound; rather, the detective surmised the same from the surveillance videos. * * *

Because DHS arrested defendant without probable cause, all evidence flowing from the arrest, including defendant’s statements and the contents of the shoe box, was unlawfully obtained and must be suppressed … . The People are not entitled to a remand for further suppression proceedings, as they “had a full opportunity to present their case at the original hearing” and refrained from submitting alternative theories for denying suppression … .

Dismissal of the indictment is the appropriate remedy in this case. The People’s remaining evidence — namely, the surveillance videos showing the suspect in the area before and after the attack and Detective Hostetter’s “confirmatory” identification of defendant at the shelter — is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case if the People were to try defendant upon remand. The complainant could not provide a description of her assailant, the assailant is unidentifiable in the videos showing the attack, and defendant’s now-suppressed statements and pants were the only evidence connecting him to the crime scene … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 04526, First Dept 7-31-25

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty but the indictment was dismissed because his arrest was not supported by probable cause.

Practice Point: If the People were given a full opportunity to present available evidence and to make legal arguments at the motion stage, evidence not presented and arguments not made there will not be considered on appeal.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy