You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED IT HAD RAINED FOR ONLY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR; THEREFORE HER TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff testified it had only begun raining five minutes before she slipped and fell on water on the floor, which she did not see until after she fell:

Defendants established prima facie that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the water on their lobby floor that plaintiff alleges caused her to slip and fall … . Their property manager stated in an affidavit that she conducted a search of defendants’ records for complaints about water on the lobby floor between January 1, 2015 and July 14, 2015, the date of plaintiff’s accident, and found none except for the complaint made by plaintiff after she fell. That someone fell in the lobby while it was raining after stepping off a mat about a year before plaintiff’s accident does not raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had actual notice of the water that caused plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff’s own testimony established prima facie that defendants did not have constructive notice of water on the lobby floor; she testified that it was sunny when she left for lunch, that it did not start raining that day until about five minutes before she reentered the building, and that she did not see the water until after she fell … . A general awareness that the lobby floor could become wet during inclement weather is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the specific condition that caused plaintiff’s fall … . Barreto v 750 Third Owner, LLC, 021 NY Slip Op 02868, First Dept 5-6-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF, ON A BICYCLE, WAS STRUCK BY A BUS AND SUFFERED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, A TORN ROTATOR CUFF AND SEVERAL HERNIATED DISCS; THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARDS, WHICH INCLUDED $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES, WERE DEEMED UNREASONABLE; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated several of the jury’s damages awards and ordered a new trial on damages. Plaintiff was struck by a bus while on a motorized bike resulting in traumatic brain injury, a torn rotator cuff and several herniated discs:

The jury’s award of $0 for future pain and suffering is inconsistent with its award of $250,000 for future medical expenses and, in any event, against the weight of the evidence and materially deviates from what would be reasonable compensation … .

Given the jury’s finding that plaintiff sustained a “significant limitation of use,” and its award of future medical costs over a period of 25 years, it is clear that the jury found plaintiff to have suffered injuries that will continue to impair his life into the future, and the award of $0 for future pain and suffering is irreconcilable with this finding and cannot stand … .

The award of $750,000 for past pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation in light of plaintiff’s shoulder, spine, and traumatic brain injuries … .

The $0 awards for past and future lost earnings were against the weight of the evidence in light of plaintiff’s testimony regarding his prior income and current unemployment. Dr. Cornelius E. Gorman testified that plaintiff’s “career is lost” and that he “cannot qualify for competitive employment” given his cognitive deficits. The jury had no reasonable basis for depriving plaintiff of damages for past and future loss of earnings … . Scott v Posas, 2021 NY Slip Op 02885, First Dept 5-6-21

 

,

THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court and holding that decisions to the contrary should no longer be followed, determined the odor of marijuana smoke and the small about of marijuana on the console of the defendant’s car did not, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, justify the full search of the trunk of the car. Therefore the firearm found in the trunk should have been suppressed:

… “[T]he automobile exception. . . is an exception only to the warrant requirement; it does not, in contrast to the search-incident-to-arrest exception, dispense with the requirement that there be probable cause to search the vehicle” … . * * *

We are left with the question of whether the presence of a small amount of marijuana consistent with personal use provided the requisite probable cause and nexus to justify a search of the trunk. We find that in this case it did not. The only reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence here was that the de minimis amount of unburnt marijuana was for personal use, not for distribution or trafficking. The officer did not find any drug paraphernalia in the car. Indeed, in this case, there was “scant evidence of drugs in the car” … , and there was no probable cause to believe there was contraband in the trunk of the car. Therefore, because a proper search pursuant to the automobile exception “is no narrower-and no broader-than [sic] the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause, [and] otherwise is as the magistrate could authorize” … , we find that here the search of the trunk was not supported by probable cause. Consequently, the gun found therein, and the statements made by defendant thereafter, should have been suppressed. People v Ponder, 2021 NY Slip Op 02880, First Dept 5-6-21

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LADDER WAS INTENDED FOR USE AS A STAGE PROP BY ACTORS AS OPPOSED TO AN OSHA COMPLIANT LADDER; EVEN WHERE A LABOR LAW 200 ACTION WILL NOT LIE, A COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE VIABLE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ALTERING THE LADDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the Labor Law 200 cause of action against Center Line should have been dismissed but the common law negligence cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Although the decision doesn’t spell it out, it appears that defendant Center Line altered the ladder in question by gluing on an extra rung. Apparently the ladder was to be used by actors and Center Line argued it was a stage prop and was not intended for use an OSHA compliant ladder. The viable contract-based “Espinal” negligence theory was based upon launching an instrument of harm (altering the ladder):

Even assuming that Center Line is a proper Labor Law § 200 defendant, it cannot be held liable under the statute. This case is a means and methods of work case, and there is no proof that Center Line had authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work … .

A claim for common-law negligence may lie even though there is no Labor Law § 200 liability … . A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Center Line negligently created or exacerbated a dangerous condition so as to have “launche[d] a force or instrument of harm” … . Although Center Line augmented the ladder as directed by Production Core, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Center Line could have reasonably anticipated that the gluing of the rung to the top of the ladder would pose a hazard and likely to cause injury … . While plaintiff and the codefendants claim that Center Line dangerously altered the ladder despite knowing that the ladder was structural and climbable, Center Line claims that the ladder was a prop ladder that was not meant to be OSHA compliant, and that it augmented the ladder in reliance on Production Core’s assurances that the top portion of the ladder would not be ascended by the actors. Such raises an issue of fact for the jury to decide. Mullins v Center Line Studios, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02756, First Dept 5-4-21

 

,

DEFENDANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FOR REPEATEDLY PUNCHING THE VICTIM AFTER THE VICTIM WAS HANDCUFFED AND RESTRAINED FACE DOWN ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department upheld the assault and offering a false instrument for filing convictions of a police officer who unnecessarily repeatedly struck the victim after the victim was handcuffed and restrained:

The evidence supports the court’s finding that defendant, an experienced police officer, lacked a reasonable ground to believe that it was necessary to punch the victim repeatedly to prevent the victim from biting him, both when the victim was rear-cuffed and lying face down on the floor of an apartment building lobby and being effectively restrained by defendant and another officer, and after defendant subsequently brought the victim to the building’s rear stairwell without seeking the assistance of any of the other officers present (see Penal Law §§ 35.05[1], 35.15[1], 35.30[1][a]). The evidence also supports the conclusion that all of defendant’s punches were unjustified, and also supports the alternative conclusion that even if the initial punch were justified, the subsequent punches were unjustified, and these punches caused additional injury … .

The evidence also established that defendant intentionally caused concededly false statements or information to be written on officially filed forms … . People v Saladeen, 2021 NY Slip Op 02760, First Dept 5-4-21

 

, ,

IN AN ACTION BY CATERING WAITSTAFF SEEKING TIPS ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD BY THE EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW, THE EMPLOYER CANNOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM A CONTRACTOR WHICH SUPPLIED CATERING STAFF TO THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, in a matter of first impression, determined that an employer (Great Performances) cannot seek indemnification from from a contractor (Kensington) for alleged violations of the Labor Law. The plaintiffs alleged Great Performances kept tips which should have gone to tie waitstaff. Kensington had supplied staff to Great Performances for catered events:

We … find that Great Performances’ third-party complaint was properly dismissed as against Kensington on the ground that an employer has no right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought pursuant to NYLL [New York Labor Law] 196-d because indemnification under that statute, whether contractual or otherwise, is against public policy. * * *

The policies behind the statute sought to ensure that employers be held accountable for any wage violations and are not permitted to contract away liability. Indeed, holding that an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought pursuant to NYLL 196-d would undermine the employer’s willingness to comply with its obligations under the statute. Robinson v Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02769, First Dept 5-4-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF SHEETROCK, THE LADDER HE WAS STANDING ON SHOOK, AND PLAINTIFF FELL TO THE GROUND; THERE WAS NO NEED TO PROVE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted, Plaintiff stood on an A-frame ladder while attempting to put up a piece of sheetrock on the ceiling. His arm which was holding up the sheetrock became tired, the sheetrock fell striking plaintiff’s head and then the ladder shook and moved and he fell to the ground. There was no need to prove the ladder was defective:

The undisputed facts establish that defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to properly secure the ladder against movement or slippage and to ensure that it remained steady and erect … . Defendants failed to guard against plaintiff’s risk of falling from a ladder while using one hand over his head to hold the sheetrock in place and the other hand over his head to operate a drill … .

Because we find that the ladder did not provide adequate protection, it is irrelevant that it appeared “very sturdy” to plaintiff. A plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that a ladder is defective in order to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Ping Lin v 100 Wall St. Prop. L.L.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 02605, First Dept 4-29-21

 

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO RESPONDENT’S NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 SHOIULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER LESS INTRUSIVE METHODS FOR ROOF PROTECTION OF RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY COULD BE USED TO FACILITATE FACADE WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined all the relevant factors had not been considered when granting petitioner’s application for access to respondent’s neighboring property to install roof and terrace protection related to work on the facade of petitioner’s building. The matter was remitted for a determination whether less intrusive methods of roof protection could be used:

Supreme Court improvidently granted petitioner’s application for access to respondent’s neighboring property in order to effectuate repairs to petitioner’s property pursuant to RPAPL 881. “Although the determination of whether to award a license fee is discretionary, in that RPAPL 881 provides that a ‘license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires,’ the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees” … . This is because “‘the respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it. . .Equity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access'” … . Furthermore, “[c]ourts are required to balance the interests of the parties and should issue a license when necessary, under reasonable conditions, and where the inconvenience to the adjacent property owner is relatively slight compared to the hardship of his neighbor if the license is refused” … .

In granting access, Supreme Court permitted petitioner to designate a controlled access zone and to place roof protection on respondent’s terraces. The roof protection petitioner seeks to install is placed directly on top of the floors of respondent’s terraces and according to respondent would completely prohibit the tenants of the terraced apartments from using any portion of their terraces. Prior to the granting petitioner’s application, Supreme Court must consider and resolve the issue as to whether there are less intrusive and equally effective methods of roof protection … . Matter of 400 E57 Fee Owner LLC v 405 E. 56th St. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02587, First Dept 4-29-21

 

, ,

THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine applied to this breach of contract action such that each breach was actionable and, therefore, the statute of limitations for all subsequent breaches was not triggered by the first breach. The subjects of the contracts were commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). The complaint alleged defendant CWCI breached a collateral management agreement (CMA):

Generally speaking, a claim accrues for statute of limitations purposes when “all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief” … . However, the mere fact that a claim has accrued and the time to bring an action on it has commenced to run does not mean that a new claim, with a new limitations period, may not arise out of a new set of facts that forms part of a series with the original wrong. [Plaintiff] maintains that the allegations against CWCI comprise such a series of individual wrongs. Thus, it relies on cases such as Bulova Watch Co. v Celotex Corp. (46 NY2d 606 [1979]). There, a new claim, with a new limitations period, was held to have accrued each time the plaintiff, the obligee under a bond that guaranteed that the defendant roofer would make repairs necessary to ensure the watertightness of the plaintiff’s roof over the 20-year life of the bond, asked the defendant, to no avail, to repair a leak. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s failure to commence suit within the limitations period based on the initial leak did not bar the action. * * *

We find that the continuing wrong doctrine does apply to this case. CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v CWCapital Invs. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02487, First Dept 4-27-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS RAPED IN DEFENDANTS’ BAR/RESTAURANT AND RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY AND THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s third-party-assault-negligence action alleging inadequate security at defendant bar/restaurant should not have been dismissed. The building was owned by Harvard Agency and leased to Turnmill. Plaintiff was raped in a basement restroom. Plaintiff raised questions of fact by evidence a rape had occurred at a nearby bar owned by the same family, the bar was in a high crime area, and there were no security cameras in the basement:

Our courts have long held that “‘New York landowners owe people on their property a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain their property in a safe condition'” … . “Although landlords . . . have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety … . …

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact by pointing to evidence that Harvard was aware of another assault at a bar owned by the same family and located only a few blocks from Turnmill ( … [… ‘[t]here is no requirement . . . that the past experience relied on to establish foreseeability be of criminal activity at the exact location where plaintiff was harmed or that it be of the same type of criminal conduct to which plaintiff was subjected”]).

… [P]laintiff submitted a detailed expert affidavit indicating that the bar/restaurant was in a high crime area, and that the security employed was inadequate and a deviation from reasonable security standards … . Jane Doe v Turnmill LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02495, First Dept 4-27-21

 

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