You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXCUSE FOR LATE FILING WAS INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY DEFENDANTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE 11-MONTH DELAY IN FILING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to deem a notice of claim timely served should not have been granted. The excuse for failing to timely file was not sufficient, plaintiff failed show the city defendants had timely knowledge of the claim, and plaintiff did not demonstrate the city defendants were not prejudiced the the 11-month delay in filing the notice:

Plaintiff’s averment that he was unaware of the time limits necessary to file a notice of claim and initially did not retain counsel after being released from custody because he was focusing on the criminal charges against him are not acceptable excuses for failing to file a timely notice of claim … .

Furthermore, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence establishing that defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims within 90 days of the accrual of the claims or within a reasonable time thereafter … . Plaintiff’s allegations that NYPD officers participated in his false arrest and detention and that they assaulted and battered him do not satisfy plaintiff’s burden of establishing that defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts because his allegations do not constitute facts or evidence … . Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants must have records regarding his arrest, detention, and prosecution is also unavailing, as “the alleged existence of records does not suffice to establish actual knowledge” … .

Since plaintiff failed to make an initial showing that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay of about 11 months in filing the notice of claim, the burden never shifted to defendants to make a particularized showing of prejudice to their ability to defend on the merits … . Waddell v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02357, First Dept 4-16-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors a court will consider when determining whether a late notice of claim should be allowed.

 

THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, A JURISIDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT CURED BY AN AMENDMENT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the indictment was defective because it did not indicate the specific statutory subdivision defendant was accused of violating:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the count of the indictment under which he was convicted was jurisdictionally defective and that the court should not have amended the indictment at the People’s request. While the jurisdictional requirements of an indictment count are ordinarily met by an allegation that the defendant “violated the terms of a specific statute designated by name and section” … , that rule does not apply where, as here, the statute at issue allows for commission under discrete subdivisions and there is no specific allegations regarding the subsection that the defendant allegedly violated … . The second count of the indictment charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02(1), could be satisfied by proof that defendant committed the “bump-up” crime of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.01) in one of four ways, without specifically alleging the provision that defendant violated. Further, the amendment had the effect of “curing . . . a failure . . . to charge or state an offense” or the “legal insufficiency of the factual allegations,” both of which are prohibited by CPL 200.70(2).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 02214, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: If the statute allows for commission of the offense under discrete subdivisions, the specific subdivision under which defendant is charged must be indicated in the indictment. Failure to indicate the subdivision is a jurisdictional defect which apparently cannot be cured by amendment.

 

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT BASED ON “FAMILIAL STATUS” AND “CAREGIVER” DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination under the Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed in this wrongful termination action:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to plaintiff’s familial and caregiver status causes of action under the State HRL [Human Rights Law], which prohibits discrimination based on “familial status,” including against “any person who . . . has a child or is in the process of securing legal custody” of a child (Executive Law §§ 292[26][a], 296[1][a]), and the City HRL, which prohibits discrimination based on “caregiver status” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[1][a]). On July 11, 2016, the day before DSC’s [defendant’s] decision to put plaintiff on probation, plaintiff attended a hearing in a custody proceeding regarding his daughter. According to plaintiff, Richard Greenberg, DSC’s co-chief investment officer, questioned whether plaintiff “was sure [he wanted] to do this” (that is, to participate in custody proceedings) and encouraged him to “[g]ive up on [his] daughter.” In addition, at plaintiff’s year-end review meeting, which plaintiff recorded, Greenberg gave him negative feedback about his job performance and stated, “I just want to know . . . is your heart still in it, you know? . . . I mean you’ve got all these things going on.”

Additionally, in January 2017, Jane Park, the firm’s director of business development and client relations, authored a memo for Smith and Greenberg that discussed whether to disclose to firm clients that a more junior investment analyst had received firm equity while plaintiff had not. The memo posited telling clients, as one option, that plaintiff “is going through some personal issues which make[] the current timing less than ideal for ownership disbursement.” Park testified at her deposition that she was referring to the fact that plaintiff was “distracted” because of his divorce and custody fight. …

Taken together, the evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that defendants’ proffered reasons for denying plaintiff equity and ultimately terminating him were “false, misleading, or incomplete,” and that plaintiff was, in fact, terminated on the basis of his familial or caregiver status … . Mezinev v Donald Smith & Co., 2026 NY Slip Op 02209, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination in the context of an alleged wrongful termination of employment pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED MOTHER A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; THE SERIOUSNESS OF MOTHER’S CONDUCT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE JUDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not granted a suspended judgment in this neglect proceeding:

The court abused its discretion in granting the mother a suspended judgment. A court should not vacate a neglect finding except upon a determination that doing so serves the child’s best interests, including “consideration of a parent’s ability to supervise a child and eliminate any threat of future abuse or neglect” … . “[A]t its core, a suspended judgment affords a respondent the opportunity to correct his or her neglectful actions” … . Courts considering whether to grant a suspended judgment should examine four factors: “(1) the respondent’s prior child protective history; (2) the seriousness of respondent’s offense; (3) respondent’s remorse and acknowledgment of the abusive or neglectful nature of his or her act; and (4) respondent’s amenability to correction, including compliance with court orders” (id. at 12 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, Family Court failed to consider the second, third and fourth factors adequately. The trial court addressed the first factor by noting that the mother had no prior involvement with the child welfare system. As to the second factor, although the mother admitted inflicting excessive corporal punishment on [the child] on more than one occasion and causing him injury, Family court’s decision does not acknowledge the seriousness of the mother’s conduct. Matter of N.G. (Angelica T.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02198, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors Family Court must consider before granting a suspended judgment in a neglect proceeding. Here it was not enough that mother had no prior involvement with the child welfare system. The seriousness of her conduct must be considered.​

 

,

AN ANONYMOUS RADIO TRANSMISSION PROVIDED THE COLOR, MAKE, LOCATION AND LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OF A CAR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CARJACKED; THE POLICE OFFICERS FORCIBLY STOPPED THE CAR BEFORE VERIFYING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” AT THE TIME OF THE STOP (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the forcible stop of the vehicle defendant was driving was not supported by “reasonable suspicion.” The stop was based upon an anonymous radio transmission. The transmission provided the color, make, license plate number and location of a vehicle which had been carjacked. The police saw a vehicle matching the description in a parking lot but did not verify the license plate number until after the forcible stop:

… [T]he arresting officer testified that at approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 30, 2016, he and his partner received a radio transmission that a black Toyota with Pennsylvania license plate JCS1537 had been carjacked, the car was being tracked in real time, and its current location was near West 165th Street and Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan. No evidence was presented as to the basis for the transmission or how the vehicle was being tracked. The officers responded to that location and saw a man standing by the trunk of a black Toyota with his hands by his waist in an open-air parking lot. A parking lot attendant confirmed that a black Toyota with Pennsylvania license plate had recently entered the lot. The officers then saw the black Toyota trying to exit. The officer stopped the car by drawing his gun, putting his hand up, and telling it to stop. The officer noticed that the Toyota had no front plate, which was not required in Pennsylvania, and a parking receipt on the windshield for the same license plate number as the stolen vehicle. * * *

The police officer’s testimony failed to provide any information that would have corroborated the anonymous radio transmission. Without knowing the source or nature of the tip with respect to either the carjacking report or the real-time tracking, the forcible stop was not justified by a reasonable suspicion … . The testimony that defendant was standing near the trunk of a black Toyota in a parking lot was not corroborative since such conduct was neither unlawful nor suspicious. The officer’s testimony indicated that he only noticed the lack of the front license plate and parking receipt reflecting a matching license number with the carjacked vehicle after he had already forcibly stopped defendant. Thus, this corroborating information cannot justify the officer’s actions … . People v Martinez-Jaquez, 2026 NY Slip Op 02045, First Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the corroboration required before the police can act on an anonymous tip.

 

PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC DRUG INVOLVED; ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE IS A “NARCOTIC DRUG” IS REQUIRED; THEREFORE PENAL LAW 220.16(1) AND 21 USC 841(1)(A) ARE “STRICTLY EQUIVALENT” OFFENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, overruling precedent, determined that the knowledge element of Penal Law 220.16(1) (criminal possession of a controlled substance) requires only that a defendant know that the substance is a “narcotic drug” and does not require knowledge that the substance is a specific drug. Therefore Penal Law 220.16(1) is equivalent to 21 USC 841(1)(a) and defendant can be sentenced as a second felony offender based on the prior federal conviction:

… Penal Law § 220.39(1) … [states that] a person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree “when he knowingly and unlawfully sells . . . a narcotic drug.” We now hold that the “nature” of the substance possessed under Penal Law § 220.39(1), and under Penal Law § 220.16(1), the statute at issue in the instance case, is, in accordance with the statutory language, “a narcotic drug.” Knowledge of the particular drug possessed is not required. This definition also aligns the knowledge requirement with other decisions of this Court. For example, in People v Martin (153 AD2d 807, 808 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]), we held, in a different context, that “Penal Law § 220.16(1) does not distinguish between the types of narcotics possessed, but treats all drugs classified as narcotics interchangeably.”

Under the correct definition of the nature of the substance possessed, defendant’s federal conviction and Penal Law § 220.16(1) are strictly equivalent. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01857, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Here the First Department overruled precedent which held that the knowledge element of drug-possession charges required knowledge of the specific drug involved. Because the knowledge element requires only that a defendant know the possessed substance is a “narcotic drug,” Penal Law 220.16(1) is strictly equivalent to the federal statute 21 USC 841(1)(a) for purposes of a second felony offender adjudication.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN AN ELECTRICAL EXPLOSION CAUSED HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE GROUND; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FALL, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, determined plaintiff in this ladder-fall case was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when a wire fed in by another worker struck and electric panel causing an explosion. Plaintiff and the ladder fell to the floor. The evidence did not demonstrate the ladder was defective. And plaintiff did not present any evidence that additional safety devices would have prevented the ladder from falling over:

Nazario applies … . … [T]here the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment due to the presence of several triable issues of fact (see Nazario, 28 NY3d at 1055). The record … lacked evidence concerning whether the plaintiff “should have been provided with additional safety devices and [whether] the failure to do so was a contributing cause of the accident” … . Summary judgment was appropriately denied, … even though the plaintiff “hung onto the ladder” and the ladder “fell to the ground” with the plaintiff “because it was not secured to something stable” … . As in Nazario, plaintiff here failed to submit any evidence—whether by his own testimony or through an expert opinion—addressing gravity-related safety devices or precautions that might have prevented his fall … . Arias v Brooks Holdings Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01841, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: If a plaintiff in a ladder-fall case presents no evidence the ladder itself was defective, summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action will not be granted unless the plaintiff presents evidence that an additional safety device (which was not provided) would have prevented the fall.

 

DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE, 18 INCHES OF SNOW HAD FALLEN LESS THAN TWO HOURS BEFORE; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON STAIRS IN THE LOBBY; PLAINTIFF’S OWN TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants (the building owner and manager) were not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on water on interior stairs because of the storm-in-progress doctrine:

Defendants, the owner and manager of the building in which plaintiff was injured, established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting undisputed meteorological data establishing that plaintiff’s accident occurred no more than 1 hour and 50 minutes after cessation of a major winter storm, which resulted in the accumulation of more than 18 inches of snow. Thus, under the storm-in-progress doctrine, defendants’ duty to maintain the lobby in a safe condition was suspended at the time plaintiff slipped and fell on the stairs, as defendants did not have a reasonable amount of time to permit discovery and remediation of the storm-related wet condition … .

Defendants also demonstrated that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether they created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Plaintiff does not maintain that defendants created the hazardous condition. As to notice, plaintiff himself testified that he saw no wet condition or puddles on the stairs when he ascended them approximately 45 minutes before he slipped and fell on the way down; he also testified that only after his fall did he see dirty water on the stairs and small puddles in the lobby … . Therefore, the wet condition could not have existed for more than 45 minutes, which is insufficient to discover and remedy a dangerous condition … . Alvizurez v North State Realty Assoc. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01839, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the storm-in-progress doctrine in a slip and fall case.​

Practice Point: Note that a plaintiff’s own testimony can reveal that a defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall.

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TENANT TO PREVENT AN ASSAULT BY ANOTHER TENANT; THE LANDLORD’S DUTY IS NOT TRIGGERED UNLESS THE LANDLORD HAS THE AUTHORITY, ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF A TENANT-ASSAILANT; THE ABILITY TO EVICT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord did not have a duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another:

… [The landlord] demonstrated prima facie that they were not liable for the third-party defendant’s alleged assault on plaintiff. A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant …  Here, defendants had no authority or opportunity to remove Vasquez from the premises prior to the assault. Defendants’ employee testified that defendants were unaware of prior complaints of [the tenant] engaging in violence, and plaintiff acknowledged that before the attack she never complained about [the tenant] being violent. Moreover, the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable … .

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Defendants’ ability to evict [the tenant] did not constitute the requisite authority, ability, and opportunity to control him … . Plaintiff failed to identify any prior complaints about [the tenant] being violent or making explicit threats of violence. Plaintiff’s generalized complaints about unsupervised children on the complex and about other children engaging in bullying were not sufficient to put defendants on notice that [the tenant] might be violent … . Rodriguez v Madison Sec. Group, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01869, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of a landlord’s duty to prevent an assault by one tenant against another.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE EVEN A “MINIMAL INQUIRY” WHEN DEFENDANT STATED HE WANTED ANOTHER ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT DID NOT ABANDON THE ISSUE BY NOT RAISING IT AGAIN WHEN HE PLED GUILTY; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rodriguez, over a dissenting opinion, determined defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to explain his request for a new attorney. Defendant attempted to raise the issue at an early court appearance, but the judge made no inquiry. Subsequently, without raising the issue again, defendant pled guilty while represented by the same attorney:

“Where a defendant makes a seemingly serious request for reassignment of counsel, the court must make at least a ‘minimal inquiry’ as to ‘the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution’ ” … . Generally, to trigger the “minimal inquiry” requirement, the defendant must provide specific factual allegations … .

However, the “minimal inquiry” requirement presumes a fair opportunity to be heard. The law, in other words, does not permit the court to satisfy its obligations in this area by refusing the defendant an opportunity to record a potentially serious request. Thus, if the court denies the defendant’s “request for substitution of counsel without conducting any inquiry whatsoever, and without permitting defendant to explain, either orally or in writing, why such an inquiry might be necessary,” the defendant’s conviction should be vacated … .

Here, the court summarily denied defendant’s application without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard. Specifically, when defendant first asked to speak, the court ignored him altogether. When defendant made a second attempt, the court refused to permit him to address the issue and instead instructed him to “[t]alk to [his] lawyer.” As the People acknowledge, defendant had to interrupt the proceeding on his third attempt to communicate even his most elemental “need [for] a new attorney.” People v Dinkins, 2026 NY Slip Op 01742, First Dept 3-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the inquiry which must be made by a judge when a defendant requests a new attorney.

 

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