You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH (OMH) WAS PROPERLY HELD IN CONTEMPT AND FINED $100-A-DAY FOR THE DELAY IN TRANSFERRING THE MENTALLY ILL DEFENDANT FROM RIKERS ISLAND TO A SECURE PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) was properly held in contempt based on a delay in transferring the mentally ill defendant from Rikers Island to a secure psychiatric facility. $100-a-day damages were assessed:

Defendant was charged with assault in the second degree based on the complaint that he pushed his mother to the ground causing her to twist and injure her toe. He was remanded to the custody of the Department of Corrections and held at Rikers Island. The charge was later elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony based on his mother’s age. After defendant was evaluated for competency a second time in January 2025, both evaluators concluded that defendant was unfit to proceed. Supreme Court agreed, and on February 24, 2025, it ordered defendant remanded to the custody of OMH for restorative treatment. The order of commitment required that the defendant “be transferred into the custody of the Office of Mental Health no later than March 24, 2025” and warned that a failure to do so would result in a finding of contempt. It is uncontested that the transfer was delayed until July 25, 2025. * * *

OMH argues that defendant failed to prove that OMH’s delay caused his mental health to deteriorate. However, the relevant issue is not whether defendant deteriorated while he was in custody but whether OMH provided the requisite restorative care. In any event, Supreme Court was entitled to credit Dr. Goldsmith’s testimony that defendant’s condition did deteriorate at Rikers. OMH’s attempt to blame defendant for his loss because he is mentally ill and refuses treatment is risible. The purpose of a transfer to a secure psychiatric facility is so that a mentally ill defendant can receive statutorily mandated restorative care and treatment. To attribute defendant’s loss or injury to defendant’s preexisting mental illness, which causes defendant to refuse treatment, turns Criminal Procedure Law article 730 on its head. People v G.O., 2026 NY Slip Op 05242, First Dept 9-10-26

 

HERE THE PERMANENT STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, THE SOLE VIABLE MEANS OF ACCESS TO THE WORK SITE, CONSTITUTED A “SAFETY DEVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the permanent stairway where plaintiff was injured, which had worn or missing treads, was the sole viable means of access to the floors where plaintiff was working. Although another stairway was available, plaintiff was told not to use it because it was used by COVID patients. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The First Department rejected the argument that Labor Law liability was not available because plaintiff was not working on the stairway itself. The First Department also rejected the argument that a permanent stairway is not a statutory safety device:

The statute protects a worker from gravity-related hazards posed by a permanent stairway that “provided the sole means of access to the floors of the building” where the worker was working … . However, the issue of whether a stairway is the sole means of access should not be construed so strictly as to “preclude recovery merely because plaintiff had an alternative means to descend from his work area, especially when that alternative route may have seemed more dangerous than the stairs plaintiff did utilize” … . Here, the only other staircase available to plaintiff at the worksite would have required him to access a stairway used by hospital patients during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was instructed not to use. As a result, under these facts, the purported alternative staircase did not present a viable means of egress for plaintiff, and the staircase plaintiff used was his sole means of access to his work area … . Moreover, the stairs were defective in that the treads were worn out or missing.

We have considered and rejected … the argument that the statute does not cover permanent staircases … . As we recently explained, “permanent staircases are not categorically excluded from Labor Law 240(1) coverage,” and will qualify as a safety device under the Labor Law where the staircase is the sole means accessing the plaintiff’s work area … .

… Supreme Court improperly concluded that this principle applies only in situations where the plaintiff was required to work on the staircase upon which he fell … .

Supreme Court’s … conclusion that a plaintiff using a permanent staircase as a “passageway” will not give rise to Labor Law 240(1) liability is also misplaced … .  Riley v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 05241, First Dept 9-10-26

Practice Point: A permanent stairway which is the sole viable means of access to a work site is a “safety device” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AND REINSTATE COUNTERCLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have reinstated defendants’ counterclaims which were rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. The First Department explained the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a):

Defendants are not entitled to reinstatement of their counterclaims, which were each unequivocally rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict, or order a new trial, where “the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence,” or “in the interest of justice.” In making this determination, the court must proceed with caution, because “in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict” … . Thus, a verdict should only be set aside if the evidence is so in favor of the moving party that the verdict “could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … , or in the interests of justice due to “errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2026 NY Slip Op 05231, First Dept 9-3-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict. Here the jury’s rejection of defendants’ counterclaims should not have been disturbed.​

 

, , , ,

IN THIS RENT RESET ARBITRATION, THE UMPIRE COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH LANDLORD’S COUNSEL, CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY; THE AWARD WAS THEREFORE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined communications between an umpire and the landlord’s counsel created the appearance of impropriety requiring the vacation of the arbitration award in the rent reset proceeding:

… [T]he tenants exercised their second extension option under the lease … . The parties attempted to negotiate a new annual net rent, but upon reaching an impasse, they proceeded to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (the AAA). That arbitration concluded with a one-week hearing that resulted in a final award largely in the landlord’s favor. * * *

… [T]he umpire created an appearance of impropriety when he directly communicated with the landlord’s counsel about a paid offer to serve as a neutral umpire in the [another arbitration] and did so without including the tenants in the conversation. Further, the umpire’s subsequent attempt to remedy this issue with a disclosure to the tenants failed to cure his misconduct. Indeed, the disclosure was incomplete as it was the landlord’s counsel, not the umpire, who informed the tenants of the direct communication with the landlord’s counsel. To compound matters, the umpire then attempted to bargain with the tenants — offering to trade his rejection of the offer in exchange for the cooperative withdrawing its recusal application. Ultimately, although he did eventually decline the offer, the umpire’s actions irreversibly and improperly implicated the “integrity of the process” … . Matter of 57th & 6th Ground LLC v Carnegie House Tenants Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 05230, First Dept 9-3-26

Practice Point: In this arbitration of a rent reset, the umpire communicated directly with landlord’s counsel, creating the appearance of impropriety. The award was therefore vacated.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER’S CASE TO FAMILY COURT, MITIGATING FACTS AND THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE UNDERLYING THE “RAISE THE AGE” LEGISLATION WARRANTED INVOCATION OF THE COURT’S “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” JURISDICTION AND DENIAL OF THE PEOPLE’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chan, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, held that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the People’s motion to prevent the transfer of the adolescent offender’s case to Family Court. On the “no abuse of discretion” question, the majority and the dissenters agreed. The majority, however, went on to invoke its “interest of justice” jurisdiction, based on mitigating facts and the underlying purpose of the “Raise the Age (RTA)” legislation, to deny the People’s motion and allow the transfer to Family Court:

… [D]efendant, then 17 years old, chased a young woman across a basketball court, grabbed her from the back while placing his arm around her neck, and eventually brought her to the ground….  As a result, the young woman suffered minor injuries. At no point, including at the time of his arrest, did defendant take out, display, use, or fire [the] gun [found in his fanny pack]. Nor did he otherwise threaten to do so. * * *

Under the RTA, prosecutions of adolescent offenders — defined as 16 or 17 year olds charged with a felony — are presumptively removable from the Youth Part of Supreme Court to Family Court (see CPL 722.10[1]; CPL 722.23[1], [2] …). The People can rebut that presumption if a defendant is charged with a class A nondrug felony or a violent felony, and the People prove, “by a preponderance of the evidence,” that defendant (1) “caused significant physical injury” during the commission of the offense, (2) “displayed a firearm, shotgun, rifle or deadly weapon” in “furtherance of” the offense, or (3) committed a sex offense (see CPL 722.23[2][c] …). “Otherwise, the case is removed to Family Court unless, upon a motion by the People, the [Y]outh [P]art determines that ‘extraordinary circumstances exist that should prevent the transfer of the action to’ Family Court” … . * * *

… [D]efendant shouldered caretaker responsibilities for his family, including assisting his mother during a difficult pregnancy and being a source of mentorship and support for his younger siblings. He participated avidly in sports teams and lessons. His maturity was importantly manifested by his demonstrated amenability to Family Court’s services. For example, defendant highlighted his improved school performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, his interest in pursuing vocational studies, and his successful graduation from the Exalt Youth program with perfect attendance and outstanding participation. …

In our view, these are precisely the types of facts that the legislators contemplated would support removal to Family Court … . People v Key, 2026 NY Slip Op 05234, First Dept 9-3-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in depth discussion of the purpose and implementation of the “Raise the Age” legislation which allows the transfer of adolescent offenders’ felony prosecutions to Family Court.

Practice Point: Here the majority and the dissenters agreed Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the People’s motion to deny the transfer of the adolescent’s case to Family Court, but the majority went on to invoke its “interest of justice” jurisdiction to reverse, something the Court of Appeals would not have the power to do.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT TREATING NEUROLOGIST INDICATED ON A DMV FORM FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE PATIENT-DRIVER’S LICENSE THAT THE DRIVER’S LAST SEIZURE WAS TWO YEARS BEFORE WHEN, IN FACT, THE LAST SEIZURE WAS FOUR MONTHS BEFORE; TWO MONTHS AFTER REINSTATEMENT OF THE LICENSE, THE DRIVER HAD A SEIZURE-RELATED ACCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENTS DIED; THE ACTION AGAINST THE NEUROLOGIST SOUNDED IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY BROUGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the action sounded in negligence, not medical malpractice, rendering the action timely brought. Defendant neurologist was treating the non-party driver for seizures. In filling out a NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) form for reinstatement of the driver’s license, defendant stated that the driver’s last seizure was about two years before, when in fact the last seizure was four months before. To be entitled to reinstatement of the driver’s license, the driver must have been free of seizures for the previous 12 months. Two months after the driver’s license was reinstated, the driver had a seizure which resulted in a horrific traffic accident in which two people died. The lawsuit was brought by their estates:

… [P]laintiffs’ survival-action claims, premised on the theory that Dr. Avila erroneously recorded the date of the driver’s last seizure in the DMV form, which error led to the DMV reinstating the driver’s license, sound in ordinary negligence. The crux of the survival-action claims is not Dr. Avila’s negligence in furnishing medical treatment to the driver; rather, the essence of the claims is that Dr. Avila failed to fulfill a different duty. The nature of the act underlying those claims — transcribing a date from a treatment note to a governmental administration form — “is more administrative than medical in nature” … . Because the act underpinning the survival-action claims is administrative in nature, jurors can use their common everyday experience to evaluate whether Dr. Avila exercised due care … . That a physician made the alleged administrative error does not transform the claim from one sounding in ordinary negligence to one for medical malpractice; the characterization of a particular claim depends not on the title of the actor but on the nature of the challenged act … .

Ultimately, the core issue related to plaintiffs’ survival-action claims — whether Dr. Avila failed to exercise due care in recording a fact on the DMV form — may not implicate questions of medical competence or judgment regarding the treatment of the driver … . Unlike the inquiry on a medical malpractice claim, whether Dr. Avila breached his duty to exercise due care in recording a fact on the DMV form does not depend on an analysis of the medical treatment rendered to the driver … . Lafferty v Avila, 2026 NY Slip Op 05147, First Dept 8-27-26

Practice Point: If a jury does not need to analyze the medical treatment rendered by a doctor to determine a doctor’s negligence, the action does not sound in medical malpractice and is subject to a three-year statute of limitations for ordinary negligence.

 

,

PLAINTIFF-TEACHER WAS STRUCK IN THE BACK BY A BASKETBALL THAT BOUNCED OFF THE RIM DURING A RECESS-PERIOD BASKETBALL GAME; PLAINTIFF SUED THE COMPANY WHICH CONTRACTED WITH THE SCHOOL TO PROVIDE A BASKETBALL COACH FOR RECESS GAMES; NO “ESPINAL”EXCEPTIONS APPLIED SO PLAIINTIFF, AS A NON-PARTY, COULD NOT SUE UNDER THE CONTRACT; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF, BY STANDING 10 TO 12 FEET FROM THE BASKETBALL COURT, ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASKETBALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-teacher’s action against the company hired by the school (Asphalt Green) to provide a basketball coach for school recess-periods should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was standing 10 to 12 feet from the basketball court when a basketball bounced off the rim and struck her in the back. Plaintiff was not a party to the contract between the school and Asphalt Green and none of the Espinal exceptions applied. In addition, plaintiff assumed the risk of being struck by a basketball:

A contracting party can assume a duty of care toward a third party where: 1) “the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm”; 2) “the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties”; or 3) “the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]). However, none of these exceptions apply to this case.

The facts do not establish that defendants launched an instrument of harm. * * * A missed basketball shot that bounces off the rim isa frequent occurrence in basketball games. * * * There is no claim that this was anything other than a normal basketball game being played during recess. * * *

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, “one is deemed to have assumed, as a voluntary participant, spectator, or even bystander certain risks occasioned by athletic or recreational activity, and to the extent of such an assumption, any legally enforceable duty to reduce the risks of such activity is limited” … . Carrero-Santiago v Asphalt Green, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05144, First Dept 8-27-26

Practice Point: Plaintiff-teacher was not a party to the contract between the school and the company which provided a recess basketball coach. Because no “Espinal” exceptions applied, plaintiff, who was struck by an errant basketball while supervising recess, could not sue under the contract.

Practice Point: Plaintiff-teacher, who was standing 10 to 12 feet from the basketball court while supervising recess, assumed the risk of being struck by a basketball.

 

,

PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACKWARD TO ALLOW OTHERS TO EXIT THE ELEVATOR; THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WAS SIX TO TWELVE INCHES ABOVE THE BUILDING FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF SEVERELY INJURED HIS KNEE; THE SIX TO TWELVE INCH GAP WAS NOT THE TYPE OF “ELEVATION RISK” COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the 6 to 12-inch gap between the floor of the elevator and the unfinished floor just outside the elevator door was not the type of “elevation risk” addressed by Labor Law 240(1). Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed. However, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 cause of action (unsafe condition):

Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Not every fall results in the “extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . The statute protects workers only from those falls stemming from the “extraordinary elevation risks” created by “the relative elevation at which the [work] must be performed” and not from “the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site” … .

It is true that “there is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . However, under the present circumstances, the 6-to-12 inch gap between the elevator doorway and the floor “was not a physically significant height elevation differential to trigger the protection of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . Also, neither the elevator nor the missing ramp was the “functional equivalent of a safety device enumerated in the statute” … . Instead, the record supports a conclusion that plaintiff’s injury arose from the type of “usual and ordinary” perils plaintiff could expect at his job site … . Ambrose v City Univ. Constr. Fund, 2026 NY Slip Op 05060, Second Dept 8-20-26

Practice Point: Here the six to twelve inch gap between the floor of the elevator and the building floor was not the type of “elevation risk” covered by Labor Law 240(1). Labor Law 200 (unsafe condition) may apply.​

 

NONRESPONDENT MOTHER REPORTED DOMESTIC ABUSE BY HER HUSBAND; AT THE FIRST COURT APPEARANCE, MOTHER AND HER CHILDREN WERE PLACED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS); IN THE FACE OF NO EVIDENCE MOTHER’S HOME AND CHILDREN WERE NOT WELL-CARED-FOR, FOR 18 MONTHS, SHE AND HER CHILDREN WERE SUBJECTED TO FREQUENT HOME VISITS, SEARCHES, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL, AND VISITS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT; FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1054 DOES NOT AFFORD ACS SUCH BROAD POWERS OF SUPERVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosado, determined the order which placed nonrespondent mother (Sasha C) under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) was “unlawful and represented a broad overreach beyond the scope of power permitted by Family Court Act section 1054 and in contravention of its purpose.” Nonrespondent mother reported domestic abuse by her husband. From that point on the court placed her under ACS supervision which, for 18 months, entailed frequent home visits and searches, frequent communication with her children’s school, visits by law enforcement, and frequent court appearances, all in the face of no evidence the home and children were not well-cared for. The detailed description of the ACS’s intrusion into mother’s life is harrowing and well-worth reading:

Family Court erred when it placed the mother and her entire household under sweeping, overbroad, and unchecked “ACS supervision and household monitoring” in its May 31, 2024 order of fact-finding and disposition. The error was compounded by the issuance of the February 28, 2025 order extending the supervision despite the lack of good cause shown or a sound basis in the record. Such conditions of supervision run afoul of the power and purpose of Family Court Act § 1054. While the statute provides that a court may direct a nonrespondent parent to undertake certain actions with respect to the child released into their care to ensure their accessibility for services, appointments, visitation and the like, it is clear, based on the unambiguous language in the statute, that the court may not place a parent who has not been accused of any wrongdoing under ACS supervision at the postdispositional stage of the proceeding (id.; cf. Family Court Act § 1057). Even were we to accept ACS’s argument that the mother acquiesced to its request for supervision at the May 30, 2024 disposition, her agreement is irrelevant. It bears noting that the supervision proposed by ACS on that date to conduct “video visits with the children,” was a departure from the supervision that was exercised by ACS postdisposition.

To the extent that ACS argues that Family Court’s temporary extension of supervision over the mother’s household was reasonable given, among other things, the mother’s history of “failing to report the father’s neglect by domestic violence,” we once again find that ACS’s policy of pursuing supervision in such cases “reinforces the coercive control underpinning abusive relationships, turns survivors into suspects, and requires the nonrespondent parent to answer for the respondent parent’s abusive behaviors” and that adhering to such a policy would permit ACS to continue surveillance of the mother simply because the child’s father committed acts of domestic violence against her … . We reject this policy based on its faulty and unlawful premises … . Matter of L.M. (H.M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 05061, First Dept 8-20-26

Practice Point: This is an important opinion which places limits on the power of an agency, pursuant to Family Court Act section 1054, to subject a nonrespondent parent to supervision. Here nonrespondent mother reported domestic abuse by her husband. In the absence of any evidence her home and children were not well-cared-for, she was unlawfully subjected to home visits and searches, unwarranted communications with the children’s school, even visits by law enforcement, for a period of 18 months.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 WAS DISMISSED; IT WAS ALLEGED AN ATTORNEY WAS AWARE HIS CLIENT’S SLIP AND FALL WAS STAGED; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, dismissing the complaint, over a two-justice dissent, determined the allegations of a Judiciary Law violation and fraud against an attorney were insufficient. It was alleged the attorney proceeded with a slip and fall action despite knowledge that the accident was staged:

Defendants/third-party plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “a showing of egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior on the part of” [attorney] Roytblat, or demonstrate that deliberate misrepresentations necessary to sustain a Judiciary Law § 487 claim were made to defendants and the court …”.

From the dissent:

The third-party complaint adequately meets the heightened pleading standard for a claim under Judiciary Law § 487. It alleges that video evidence appears to show Wilson Pena, a third-party defendant who concededly performs investigative services for Roytblat, deliberately creating the sidewalk defect at issue in the underlying personal injury action. Plaintiff also appears in the video to feign a trip-and-fall accident caused by the defect. The video evidence, links to which were included in the third party complaint, supports this allegation. The complaint further alleges that defendants’ attorney informed Roytblat … that the underlying personal injury claim that Roytblat was pursuing was fraudulent, and that video evidence existed showing fabrication of the sidewalk defect and staging of the accident. Despite having knowledge of the fraud, Roytblat continued to pursue the litigation over the following months and sought to discontinue the action only when informed that a news report concerning the fraud was about to air. Salas v 711-715 E 231st St., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05064, First Dept 8-20-26

Practice Point: Here is a rare example of a Judiciary Law section 487 cause of action alleging an attorney proceeded with a slip and fall case knowing the accident was staged. Those allegations were deemed insufficient and the complaint was dismissed.

 

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