You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

IN AN ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS, TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE SUCH THAT THE FOUR-YEAR LOOK-BACK DOES NOT APPLY, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE EACH ELEMENT OF COMMON-LAW FRAUD; SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF FRAUD OR A COLORABLE CLAIM OF A FRAUDULENT SCHEME ARE WHAT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, remitted the matter to Supreme Court for application of the recently clarified standard for the prima facie demonstration of fraud in an action alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments. The issue is whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of fraud to overcome the four-year look-back provision in the former Rent Stabilization Law:

… [T]he Court [of Appeals] refined the common-law standard applied to allegations of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments subject to rent stabilization on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 … . More specifically, [the Court of Appeals] “made clear that, for the fraud exception [to the four-year lookback period in the former Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516 (a)] to apply, a plaintiff need not demonstrate each element of common-law fraud and instead must put forth sufficient indicia of fraud or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme” … .

Parallel to the Court of Appeals’ development of the common law applicable to fraudulent deregulation claims, the legislature addressed the fraudulent deregulation standard by statute … . Under the legislature’s statutory amendments, the relevant inquiry is whether the landlord ” ‘knowingly engaged in [a] fraudulent scheme [to deregulate] after a consideration of the totality of the circumstances’ ” … To date, the Court of Appeals has not had occasion to “address to what extent this legislation differs from [the] common-law rule, and, if there is any difference, the impact or applicability of that legislation” … . Aras v B-U Realty Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 04983, First Dept 8-13-26

​Practice Point; Consult this decision for insight into what a plaintiff must allege or demonstrate to survive a motion to dismiss or to warrant summary judgment in an action alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments and seeking the “fraud exception” to the statutory four-year look-back for damages.

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DR. VELASQUEZ WAS NEGLIGENT; HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE OPINION IS FACT-SPECIFIC AND DETAILED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined this medical malpractice action against one of the defendants, Dr. Velasquez, should have been dismissed. The opinion is fact-specific and goes through the evidence in granular detail. Roth v Velasquez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04915, First Dept 8-6-26

 

,

THIS MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT’S YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; THE RULING ON REMAND DEMONSTRATED THE JUDGE WAS NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR WITH DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY AND WAS IN FACT MISTAKEN ABOUT IT; MATTER REMANDED AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court’s ruling on remand to consider defendant’s youthful offender (YO) status, determined the judge was confused about defendant’s criminal history and in fact was mistaken about it  The case was remanded again:

In making a YO treatment determination, sentencing courts may consider “the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . While courts are not required to place their reasons for denying YO treatment on the record … , at minimum, YO consideration requires the court to have familiarity with the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before it (see CPL 720.20[1][a]).

Here, the sentencing court tracked the statutory language in denying defendant YO treatment. However, it is unclear whether the court was cognizant of the relevant facts and circumstances of defendant’s case to appropriately consider YO treatment, much less the Cruickshank factors (105 AD2d at 334).

At the very least, this record calls into question whether defendant was appropriately considered for YO treatment. The sentencing court’s confusion exposes that it was so unaware of the facts of the underlying offense that we cannot be sure it considered the mitigating factors specific to this defendant that might warrant YO treatment, i.e. that the instant offense is defendant’s first conviction, signaling that he is not a hardened criminal; defendant’s expressed remorse, despite acting in self-defense; the overt steps he has taken to lead a law-abiding life; or the lack of serious injuries to the victim. People v Marcus T., 2026 NY Slip Op 04913, First Dept 8-6-26

Practice Point: Courts need not place the reasons for denial of YO status on the record. But the court must be aware of the relevant facts and circumstance of the case. Here the judge demonstrated he did not know the defendant’s criminal history, requiring reversal.

 

, ,

THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEFENDANT DRIVER’S STRIKING A 12-YEAR-OLD PEDESTRIAN WAS THE PEDESTRIAN’S SUDDENLY RUNNING ONTO THE HIGHWAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this traffic-accident action stemming from defendant’s striking a 12-year-old pedestrian (J.W.) should have been dismissed. J.W. suddenly ran into defendant driver’s (Li’s) highway lane:

Li testified that he was driving south in the right lane of the Hutchinson River Parkway in the Bronx at about 45 miles per hour when he first saw J.W. standing 100 feet in front of him in a grassy area on the side of the highway to his right. Li testified that when the vehicle approached, J.W. made a “running gesture” and began to run towards the vehicle when it was approximately two car lengths away. Li did not brake or honk his horn, but did take his foot off the gas pedal and was in the process of moving into the left lane to move away from J.W. when J.W. entered the highway, at which point the front right side of the van struck him. Police conducted sobriety tests at the scene and allowed Li to drive the van from the scene. He did not receive a ticket, violation, or citation as a result of the collision. It is undisputed that pedestrians are prohibited from occupying the location where J.W. was traversing (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-a).

Defendants established prima facie that J.W.’s act of running into the highway unlawfully was the sole proximate cause of the collision … . Li’s testimony shows that he was confronted with a sudden and unforeseen situation in which he was forced to make a split second decision and could not “weigh alternative courses of action” such that “he cannot reasonably be held to the same conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect” … . “While it is often a jury question whether a person’s reaction to an emergency was reasonable, summary resolution is possible when the individual presents sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of his or her actions and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate question of fact on the issue” … . Danielle W. v Li, 2026 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 7-30-26

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INSURER (WHICH PAID PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR LOSSES) AS A PLAINTIFF UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FOR AN INDEPENDENT SUBROGATION ACTION) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add the insurer which paid plaintiffs’ losses as a plaintiff. The statute of limitations had passed for a separate subrogation action:

While an application to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 lies within the court’s sound discretion, “there is no sound basis in law to grant amendment pursuant to CPLR 3025(c) to add an untimely claim” … . Thus, a pleading cannot be amended to assert a new claim for which the statute of limitations has expired unless the assertion of the new claim is deemed to relate back to an earlier operative pleading that was filed while the new claim still would have been timely (see id.). Whether a new claim relates back to the time of the filing of the earlier pleading is governed by CPLR 203(f), which provides:

“A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”

In determining whether the original pleading provides the requisite notice of the transactions or occurrences underlying the proposed new claim, a court “should not . . . look[] beyond the four corners of the original pleading” … . * * *

… [T]he “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” referenced in CPLR 203(f), and to be proved in support of the subrogation claim interposed in the proposed [amended complaint] — defendants’ management of the renovation project — are precisely the same “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” alleged in the earlier complaints. As plaintiffs point out, the only effect of the assertion of the subrogation claim is to shift the claim for a portion of the damages allegedly caused by defendants’ alleged wrongdoing from the … plaintiffs to … their insurer. 217 Trust v VIR Constr., Inc, 2026 NY Slip Op 04824, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs’ insurer, which paid plaintiffs for losses which are the subject of the complaint, was properly added to the complaint as a plaintiff, after the statute of limitations for a separate subrogation action had passed, pursuant to the relation-back doctrine.

 

, ,

A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF DAYS DEVOTED TO MOTION PRACTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S 30.30 SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s speedy trial (CPL 30.30) motion should have been denied because considerable time-periods should not have been charged to the People:

The court should have denied defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment. The court should not have charged the People for the 98-day period during which codefendant delayed serving a copy of his omnibus motion on the People. This time is excludable as time attributed to “pretrial motions,” including “the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” (CPL 30.30[4][a] …).

The court likewise should have excluded the 42-day period between the date of its decision on codefendant’s omnibus motion and the date on which the matter was adjourned for the People to file their certificate of compliance (COC) … . The People were entitled to “reasonable time to prepare for hearings and trial after the court’s rulings on [the co]defendant’s omnibus motion” … . People v Page, 2026 NY Slip Op 04823, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: Here days related to defense motion practice and preparation for hearings precipitated by rulings on defense motions should not have been charged to the People in a “speedy trial” analysis.

 

,

A STAIRWAY MAY CONSTITUTE A “SAFETY DEVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND A STAIRWAY NEED NOT BE DEFECTIVE TO TRIGGER LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED THE STAIRWAY WAS INADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED AND WAS OBSTRUCTED BY A CABLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s (RBS’s) motion for summary judgment, over a two justice dissent, determined that a stairway need not be defective to fall under the coverage of Labor Law 240(1). Here plaintiff alleged the stairway was inadequately illuminated and was obstructed with a cable which caused plaintiff to trip and fall. The stairway can constitute a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and the majority concluded the stairway itself need not be defective to trigger Labor Law 240(1) liability:

Questions of fact exist as to whether the staircase constituted a Labor Law § 240(1) safety device … .

… [In] “the First Department, falls from permanent appurtenances which function as the only means of access are . . . entitled to Labor Law § 240(1) protection,” including “stairways . . . utilized . . . in the performance of the plaintiff’s work.” Consistent with this, RBS cites no controlling caselaw holding that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply to injuries incurred on stairways that are not structurally defective….  … T]he dissent makes an argument … that Labor Law § 240(1) claims can only be made as to injuries incurred on stairways that are structurally defective. The dissent cites three cases to support its claim that Labor Law § 240(1) claims involving stairways have been sustained only when the stairways involved were structurally defective. However, none of these cases sustained a Labor Law § 240(1) claim; rather, they affirmed denials of summary judgment, and in any event, did not turn on the structural soundness of the staircases at issue … . It is improper for us to decide an issue that appellant did not raise and that respondent was not given an opportunity to address … . Mazzurco v Broadway 52nd L.P., 2026 NY Slip Op 04822, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: In the First Department, a stairway may constitute a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and the stairway itself need not be defective to trigger Labor Law 230(1) liability.

Practice Point: An appeal should not be decided on a ground not raised by the appellant.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE JUDGE “MY LAWYER IS INEFFECTIVELY COUNSELING ME” THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT AND SHUT DOWN ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, over a dissent, determined the judge’s failure to conduct any inquiry when defendant requested new counsel was reversible error:

A defendant may be entitled to new counsel “upon showing good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel … . The defendant’s request “may not be used merely to delay the orderly administration of justice” … . It must be supported by “specific factual allegations of serious complaints about counsel” … . Once the court determines that defendant’s request is not “merely to delay” but is “seemingly serious,” the court is required to make a minimal inquiry before exercising its discretion to grant or deny substitution of counsel … .

However, before the court can determine whether the defendant’s allegations are sufficiently serious to warrant minimal inquiry, it must at the very least allow the defendant the opportunity to make the allegations … . Thus, this Court has repeatedly held that a defendant is entitled to a new trial where the trial court “denied [a] request for new counsel without making any inquiry into the substance of his request, and without giving defendant any opportunity to explain the basis for his request” … . * * *

In this case, after jury selection was complete and as the jurors were about to enter the courtroom, defendant told the court, “I feel I’m not getting a fair trial. I’m not even prepared for a trial. My lawyer, my lawyer is ineffectively counseling me . . . . [a]nd also representing me.” The court responded that “You made your record” and “I’m not relieving your counsel. Don’t interrupt me.” Defendant tried to continue his request and stated, “I asked for a lab report. He gave me a field test.” The courtinterjected and instructed defendant to “not interrupt me” and warned that “[i]f you do this kind of behavior, particularly if the jury is here, it’s going to be a problem, okay. So just get yourself under control.” The court’s admonition effectively foreclosed any further discussion. People v Cooper, 2026 NY Slip Op 04561, First Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: When a defendant tells the judge he is not being effectively represented by counsel, the judge should make at least a minimal inquiry. Here the failure to make any inquiry into the basis of defendant’s statement was deemed reversible error.

 

, , ,

THE PARTIES IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENTERED A LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT ADVANCED FUNDS TO PLAINTIFF IN RETURN FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDS FROM THE DIVORCE CLAIM; DESPITE THE INCLUSION OF THE TERM “THIS IS NOT A LOAN” IN THE AGREEMENT, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THE AGREEMENT WAS IN FACT AN INVALID LOAN AT A USURIOUS 18.96% ANNUAL INTEREST RATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the parties’ divorce-litigation funding agreement was a usurious loan, not an investment, and was therefore void and unenforceable:

The parties entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated May 23, 2018 (the PSA), wherein defendant agreed to advance approximately$200,000 to plaintiff to fund the legal costs of plaintiff’s pending divorce action. In return, plaintiff agreed to assign to defendant his right to receive any proceeds from the divorce claim up to the amount owed to defendant under the PSA. The “Proceeds” consisted of “the total recovery from the Claim” and the “Claim” was defined as plaintiff’s right, title, and interest in and to any amount granted to plaintiff in connection with his pending divorce action, any appeal or settlement with respect thereto, and any related action. * * *

The PSA clarified that “THIS IS NOT A LOAN” and was expressly contingent on plaintiff’s “successful” recovery on the Claim. It proclaimed that “[i]f there is no recovery on the Claim, nothing will be owed to [defendant].” Yet, several provisions of the PSA together with the Sweetheart Guaranty … , entitled defendant to recoup the money it advanced plus interest even if “there is no recovery on the Claim,” such as in the event of plaintiff’s death or reconciliation with his wife. * * *

Considering the totality of the circumstances … , we find that the parties’ PSA was in fact a loan. The only remaining question is whether the loan was usurious. A loan is usurious if the interest exceeds the maximum legal rate of 16% (see General Obligations Law § 5-501[1], [2]; Banking Law § 14-a[1]). It is undisputed that under the PSA, interest accrued at 18.96% annually, which exceeds the legal limit. Denemark v New Ch. Capital, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 04553, First Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when an agreement constitutes a “loan” subject to the usury law rather than an “investment.”

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION HINGED ON THE CREDIBILITY OF A POLICE OFFICER’S CLAIM DEFENDANT CONFESSED TO INTENTIONAL MURDER; ALL OTHER STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT WERE CONSISTENT WITH AN ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING; WITHHOLDING TWO FEDERAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE OFFICER AND THE OFFICER’S “CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD” (CCRB) RECORDS FROM THE DEFENSE WAS A REVERSIBLE BRADY VIOLATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the vacation of defendant’s conviction stemming from the People’s Brady violation, in a detailed opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the murder conviction hinged on the credibility of a police officer’s (Rodriguez’) claim defendant confessed to intentional murder. All of the other statements attributed to defendant were consistent with an accidental shooting. The opinion is far too complex to fairly summarize here and is well worth studying:

Defendant argued that the People possessed but did not disclose (i) two federal complaints brought by pro se plaintiff Dale Robertson against Detective Rodriguez, (ii) a complaint brought by plaintiff Enger Miguel Javier against Detective Rodriguez in Bronx Supreme Court, and (iii) a three-page CCRB [Civilian Complaint Review Board] Officer History. Defendant argued that the People’s failure to disclose these materials undermined the fairness of his trial and may have impacted the verdict.

The verified complaint for Javier v City of New York, filed approximately one year [the instant shooting], alleged that Detective Rodriguez and his partner interrogated the plaintiff, Javier, over two days without Miranda warnings and deprived him of access to a lawyer … . It further alleged that the detectives forced a witness to falsely accuse Javier of the crime, even though Javier repeatedly told the detectives that he was innocent and identified the actual perpetrator. Ultimately, the Bronx DA dismissed the charges against Javier.

In Robertson, the plaintiff alleged that Detective Rodriguez coerced him into confessing that he had accidentally murdered the victim while he was being transported to Central Booking …. Robertson claimed that Detective Rodriguez and another officer transported him in the back of an unmarked police vehicle with the front seat pushed all the way back, crushing Robertson’s legs. Detective Rodriguez, who was seated next to him, allegedly pressed him against the window to coerce the confession.

The People conceded that they possessed but did not disclose a CCRB Officer History containing summary information regarding 40 allegations made against Detective Rodriguez, including the dates, categories of allegations, and disposition of each incident. The 40 allegations of misconduct reflect 16 discrete CCRB incidents where Detective Rodriguez allegedly used physical force, caused property damage and threatened arrest. People v White, 2026 NY Slip Op 04475, First Dept 7-16-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of when civilian complaints against a police officer must be disclosed by the People as Brady material.

 

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