First Department Archives - New York Appellate Digest

Civil Procedure, Landlord-Tenant, Municipal Law, Tax Law

THE 2009 ROBERTS CASE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGES STEMMING FROM THE RENTAL OF DEREGULATED APARTMENTS BY LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS; THE OVERCHARGES HERE MUST BE RE-CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RECENT RULING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE CLASS OF TENANTS IN THIS RENT OVERCHARGE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED BY SUPREME COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined: (1) Roberts v Thishman, 13 NY3d 270 applies retroactively to landlords who rent deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits; (2) the class of tenants bringing the rent-overcharge action should not have been expanded by Supreme Court; and (3) Supreme Court must re-calculate the rent overcharges in accordance with the recent Court of Appeals ruling in Matter of Regina, 2020 NYSlipOp 02127:

In Gersten v 56 7th Ave. LLC (88 AD3d 189, 198 [1st Dept 2011]), this Court held that Roberts should be applied retroactively because the decision simply interpreted a statute that had been in effect for a number of years, and did not establish a new principle of law. * * *

In Matter of Regina … , the Court of Appeals determined that “the overcharge calculation amendments [in the HSTPA (HousiNg Stability and Tenant Protection Act)] cannot be applied retroactively to overcharges that occurred prior to their enactment.” The Court also resolved a split in this Department as to what rent records can be reviewed to determine rents and overcharges in Roberts cases … . Regina concluded that “under pre-HSTPA law, the four-year lookback rule and standard method of calculating legal regulated rent govern in Roberts overcharge cases, absent fraud” … .Accordingly, we … remand the matter for the court to set forth a methodology consistent with the Rent Stabilization Law as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Regina. …

… [T]he motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in expanding the class. The court’s order failed to analyze whether class action status was warranted based on the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 and CPLR 902. Conducting that analysis ourselves, we find that the redefined class represents such a fundamental change in the theory of plaintiffs’ case that expansion of the class would be improper. Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2020 NY Slip Op 04239, First Dept 7-23-20

July 23, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Arbitration, Attorneys

THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, in a matter of first impression, determined plaintiff-attorney’s failure to timely notify defendant-client of the right to arbitrate a fee dispute required dismissal of the attorney’s action seeking attorney’s fees. The Committee on Fee Disputes and Conciliation (Committee) can not hear fee disputes more that two years after legal services were rendered. Plaintiff-attorney did not notify defendant within two years and the Committee refused to hold the arbitration on that ground:

22 NYCRR 137 gives clients the right to demand arbitration of any fee dispute in an amount between $1,000 and $50,000 (22 NYCRR 137.1[b][2]). The failure of an attorney to participate in fee arbitration is a violation of the ethical rules (Rules of Professional Conduct 22 NYCRR 1200.00) rule 1.4; (see 22 NYCRR 137.11). 137.1 sets out the limitations on the disputes that will be heard by the Committee. This includes matters outside the dollar range, claims inextricably intertwined with malpractice claims, and as relevant here, claims where no legal services have been performed in the prior two years (22 NYCRR 137.1[b][6]). …

Fee arbitration is mandatory if requested by a client or a former client. It is a right of the client. Where, as in this case, an attorney, through their own delay deprives the client of that right, the attorney cannot in good faith claim compliance with the procedures of Part 137. Not only would this effectively give counsel the option of whether to arbitrate, because counsel could control whether the dispute began in two years or less, it would also be directly contrary to the rules, which provide that it is the client’s choice. Filemyr v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 04238, First Dept 7-23-20

July 23, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Negligence

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, after a comprehensive analysis of res judicata and collateral estoppel, refusing to follow the Second Department, determined a default judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought against plaintiff by defendant driver/owner’s insurer (Nationwide) did not preclude plaintiff’s subsequent personal injury action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged he was walking his motorcycle across a street when he was struct by defendants’ vehicle. Nationwide brought the declaratory judgment action to obtain a ruling it was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff and plaintiff did not appear in that action:

Claim preclusion prevents relitigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions that either were raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding … . As the Court of Appeals has stressed, this “identity” requirement is a “linchpin of res judicata,” which applies “only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'” … . Stated differently, the “doctrine of res judicata only bars additional actions between the same parties on the same claims based upon the same harm” … . …

Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action … . Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action … . There is a limit to the reach of issue preclusion, however. In accordance with due process, it can be asserted only against a party to the first lawsuit, or one in privity with a party … .

… .”An issue is not actually litigated” for collateral estoppel purposes “if, for example, there has been a default” … . …

Claim preclusion cannot apply here, because plaintiff and defendants are litigating a claim against each other for the first time. * * * Defendants’ rights to be defended and indemnified by Nationwide remained intact regardless of the outcome of the no-fault benefits dispute. Rojas v Romanoff, 2020 NY Slip Op 04237, First Dept 7-23-20

July 23, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM RIKERS ISLAND BASED UPON THE RISK OF CONTRACTING COVID-19 PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought by inmates at Rikers Island, arguing the risk of contracting COVID-19 at the jail required release, were properly denied. State and Federal constitutional arguments were raised. The analysis, which is too complex to fairly summarize here, came down to weighing the danger to the inmates against the danger to the public entailed by release:

Far from acting recklessly, respondents [city and state] have demonstrated great care to ensure the safety of everyone who enters the facility. By any objective measure, they have been anything but indifferent to the risk that COVID-19 poses to the jail population.

Even petitioners admit that respondents have taken substantial measures to reduce the spread of the virus on Rikers Island, and have had success in doing so. Moreover, petitioners have not cited to any controlling authority to establish that anything short of release constitutes deliberate indifference. …

That the State has agreed to release a significant number of detainees to help control the spread of the virus actually demonstrates that it has given a great deal of consideration to who should and should not be released, and its decision not to release petitioners based on their criminal history backgrounds is thus persuasive. Coupled with what the State and City have done to protect detainees, discussed above, we conclude that the weighing of interests falls in respondents’ favor. Matter of People ex rel. Stoughton v Brann, 2020 NY Slip Op 04236, First Dept 7-23-20

July 23, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Environmental Law, Land Use, Zoning

CITY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING ITS EFFECTS ON RENTER DISPLACEMENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, ruled that the City Council, in approving the redevelopment plan, had taken the requisite hard look pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQRA) at the environmental impacts of the plan as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS):

Petitioners argued that the City violated SEQRA and CEQR by failing to take a “hard look” at eight issues: (1) impact of rezoning on existing preferential rents and effect on renter displacement; (2) impact on area racial makeup; (3) impact on minority and women-owned businesses (MWBEs); (4) accuracy of prior City FEIS projections on rezoning impacts; (5) impact of loss of the existing Inwood library; (6) impact on emergency response times; (7) cumulative impact of other potential area rezonings, including the adjacent 40-acre MTA railyard; and (8) speculative purchase of residential buildings in the wake of the rezoning. …

We find that the City’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidence, or contrary to law. The City took the requisite “hard look” at all the issues requiring study under SEQRA/CEQR … , but did not have to parse every sub-issue as framed by petitioners … . Moreover, the City was “entitled to rely on the accepted methodology set forth in the [CEQR] Technical Manual” … , including in determining what issues were beyond the scope of SEQRA/CEQR review. Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04235, First Dept 7-23-20

July 23, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S NON-LEGAL MAIL DID NOT REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A MISTRIAL; THE PROSECUTOR’S DEMONSTRATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON (A KNIFE) DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL; AND THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE JURY NOTE REQUESTING THE EXAMINATION OF THE KNIFE WAS NOT AN O’RAMA VIOLATION AND DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction after addressing several unusual issues in depth: (1) The prosecutor obtained a ex parte order allowing the opening and reading of defendant’s non-legal mail to determine whether defendant was threatening an eyewitness. After reading two batches of mail, the prosecutor determined no threats were being made, informed defense counsel of the order and turned the mail over to defense counsel. The First Department determined there were no related grounds for disqualifying the prosecutor or for granting a mistrial. (2) When the defendant was on the stand he denied knowing the knife (murder weapon) could be flipped open with one hand. During her questioning the prosecutor demonstrated that the knife could be flipped open. The Second Department determined the “prosecutor-as-an-unsworn witness” argument did not warrant a mistrial, in part because of the curative instructions to the jury. (3) The knife was brought into the jury room after a request from the jury about which the court and the attorneys were not made aware. The judge and the attorneys had agreed that the jury’s examination of the knife would be allowed and the examination was done according to the agreed procedure. This was not an O’Rama violation because it involved only the examination of a physical object, not an instruction or the substance of any trial evidence. Therefore a mistrial on this ground was not warranted. People v Jenkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 04014, First Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 review must be confined to the ground asserted in the agency’s initial FOIL decision and could not consider the grounds asserted in the agency’s subsequent decision issued after petitioner brought the Article 78 proceeding. The ground for the initial decision had been abandoned in the second decision. The court noted that the petitioner’s demand for the metadata of the disclosed documents must be denied because metadata was not “reasonably described” in the FOIL request:

This proceeding is not in the nature of mandamus to compel. Instead, the standard of review is whether the denial of the FOIL request was “affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3] … ), for which judicial review is “limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” in its determination … . Since respondents abandoned the exemption raised in their initial decision, they cannot meet their burden to “establish[] that the . . . documents qualif[y] for the exemption” … . Further, as respondents “did not make any contemporaneous claim that the requested materials” fit the newly raised exemptions, “to allow [them] to do so now would be contrary to [Court of Appeals] precedent, as well as to the spirit and purpose of FOIL” … . …

An agency is only required to produce “a record reasonably described” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the FOIL request for “complete copies” of communications and documents cannot fairly be read to have implicitly requested metadata associated with those copies. Matter of Barry v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 04007, First Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Criminal Law

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED TO TIME-SERVED BASED UPON HIS HEALTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reduced defendant’s sentence for assault second, aggravated harassment and criminal possession of a weapon based upon defendant’s health:

The trial evidence established that the defendant engaged in a 10-month campaign of harassment, wherein he terrorized the attorneys and two female staff at the law firm representing his wife in divorce proceedings. The defendant called the firm more than 1,500 times during that period, and engaged in vile communication which became progressively more sexual, racist and threatening in nature. The evidence likewise supports the conclusion that defendant caused physical injury to his wife’s matrimonial lawyer when defendant hit the victim in the shin with his four-pronged cane during a court proceeding. * * *

While we otherwise find no basis to disturb defendant’s sentence and do not consider him deserving of this court’s leniency, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction. In so doing, we extend to him the compassion and consideration he neglected to show the four women simply doing their jobs, and reduce his sentence to time served because of defendant’s age and chronic health conditions (including coronary artery disease, hypertension and diabetes), and the fact that he has only a few months to serve before his release date. People v Spinac, 2020 NY Slip Op 04002, First Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Evidence, Negligence

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Stop 1’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The decision does not describe the facts but apparently rainfall had something to do with the fall:

Defendant (Stop 1) did not meet its initial burden of demonstrating “that it neither created a hazardous condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … , as it made no specific, affirmative showing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as they “failed to offer specific evidence as to their activities on the day of the accident, including evidence indicating the last time [the area in question] was inspected, cleaned, or maintained before [the] fall” … . Witness Nashwen Nagi testified that he was not in the bodega at the time of plaintiff’s accident because he was on vacation, and did not have any knowledge of the accident until Stop 1 received a letter from plaintiff’s lawyer. According to Nagi, Stop 1 did not maintain employment or repair records for the bodega.

The record in any event raises triable issues of fact sufficient for trial, as the affidavit from a nonparty witness presents an issue as to how long before the accident the rain had started. Ruiz v Stop 1 Gourmet Deli, 2020 NY Slip Op 04000, First Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Evidence, Municipal Law, Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING LOT AFFECTED THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PROOF ON THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; DEFENDANTS’ ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY; THE $12 MILLION VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a new trial was necessary on both liability and damages in this traffic accident case. Supreme Court had found the $12,000,000 verdict excessive and had ordered a new damages trial. The accident occurred in a parking lot at LaGuardia Airport during a snowfall and involved a salt-spreading truck. Proof whether the parking was public or private should have been allowed because the reckless disregard standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law) would apply if the parking lot was public. The First Department further found that the defendants’ accident reconstructionist should have been allowed to testify:

Plaintiff, an employee at a Dunkin Donuts franchise in LaGuardia Airport, was involved in an accident with a salt spreading truck operating in parking lot 10 of the airport during a snowfall. The trial court erred in truncating proof on the issue of whether lot 10 was public or private. This error then directly impacted whether the jury should have been charged with the recklessness standard as set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 … . The error in the charge warrants a new trial … .

The court also erred in precluding defendants’ accident reconstructionist from testifying … . The court’s in limine inquiry of the expert concerning scientific studies was not relevant, as the subject of the testimony, accident reconstruction and perception reaction time are not novel scientific theories, such as to require a Frye hearing … . The proposed expert testimony was based on evidence in the record concerning the accident, and was not entirely speculative … . Similarly, defendants’ notice of expert exchange was not insufficient such as to warrant his in toto preclusion. The remedy for any alleged failures in specificity could have been handled by limiting his testimony to the subject matters listed in the exchange (CPLR 3101[d]). Cabrera v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 03993, First Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Posts

THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).

THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM RIKERS ISLAND BASED UPON THE RISK OF CONTRACTING COVID-19 PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

CITY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING ITS EFFECTS ON RENTER DISPLACEMENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN (FIRST DEPT).

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED TO TIME-SERVED BASED UPON HIS HEALTH (FIRST DEPT).

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.