You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE AREA WERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The incident report indicated there was video surveillance of the area where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on blueberries on the supermarket (Bogopa’s) floor. An employee of defendant testified he did not know of any surveillance cameras in the supermarket:

The Bogopa defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. In support of their motion, the Bogopa defendants submitted, among other things, a store incident report which checked a “yes” box when asked if the incident was captured on video, which should be preserved. * * *

The record presents contradictory statements from the Bogopa defendants regarding whether surveillance videos recording the time and location of plaintiff’s fall were available and should have been preserved pursuant to an express video-preservation directive in the incident report prepared by the Bogopa defendants following plaintiff’s accident. While the incident report mentions a surveillance recording, the Bogopa defendant’s employee testified that he did not “know of” any surveillance cameras in the supermarket.

The Bogopa defendants argue in their motion for summary judgment that there is no evidence that establishes the existence of surveillance cameras in the supermarket. We disagree. Where, as here, potential video evidence existed of the alleged hazardous location that may have been of assistance to plaintiff in establishing whether defendants created and/or had notice of an alleged slippery, blueberry-strewn floor hazard, the motion by the Bogopa defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them should be denied. Banks v Bogopa, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02236, Frist Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

A THEORY ASSERTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AFTER DISCOVERY HAD ENDED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should have been granted. Plaintiff raised a new theory in opposition to the motion, after discovery had ended:

Plaintiff Frank Darabont, represented by his agent, plaintiff Creative Arts Associates, entered into an agreement to develop and run the television series The Walking Dead in exchange for fixed payments for each episode of the series, as well as backend compensation contingent upon the show’s profitability, as calculated based on “Modified Adjusted Gross Receipts” (MAGR), with defendant AMC Network Entertainment LLC producing the series and exhibiting it on its own cable channel.

Plaintiffs’ claim that AMC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by crafting the formula for MAGR arbitrarily, irrationally, or in bad faith was improperly asserted for the first time in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment … . … [T]here are no allegations in the complaint that AMC engaged in misconduct by formulating the MAGR definition in such a manner as to deprive plaintiffs of contractual benefits. … [I]t would be prejudicial to require AMC to defend against a theory of liability asserted only after discovery had concluded. Darabont v AMC Network Entertainment LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02240, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S THIRD-PARTY-ASSAULT JURISPRUDENCE, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT HELD THE BROKEN DOOR THROUGH WHICH THE ASSAILANTS GAINED ACCESS TO THE BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT AND KILLED WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SHOOTING BECAUSE THE ASSAILANTS WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO ENTER THE BUILDING EVEN IF THE DOOR LOCK WERE WORKING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the landlord, New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), was not liable for the shooting death of plaintiff’s decedent, Murphy, despite conclusive video evidence the locking mechanism on the door the assailants used to enter plaintiff’s decedent’s building was broken. Disagreeing with the Second Department’s characterization of the First Department’s jurisprudence in similar third-party assault cases, the First Department held that the assailants were intent on shooting plaintiff’s decedent and would have gained entrance to the building even if the locking mechanism worked. Therefore the assailants’ actions constituted the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death:

We disagree with the [Second Department’s] implication that under this Court’s jurisprudence the fact that a victim was targeted obviates the need for any inquiry into the security measures in place at the subject premises. Indeed, we are aware of no case in the First Department that suggests that a landowner would avoid liability even if minimal precautions would have actually prevented a determined assailant from gaining access. In reality, however, that is hardly ever the case. In Buckeridge v Broadie (5 AD3d 298, 300), … the assailants were “sophisticated” and disguised themselves to gain entry. In Cerda v 2962 Decatur Ave. Owners Corp. (306 AD2d 169, 170 [1st Dept 2003]) … the plaintiff was assaulted by a “team of assassins.” … [C]ases confirm that this Court has not abandoned the notion that more than the simple fact that a victim was targeted is necessary to shield a property owner from liability. … [T]he cases confirm that, given the minimal steps a landowner is required to take to secure premises, it has no duty to outwit or outthink those who are determined to overcome those steps.

The record establishes that Murphy’s killers were intent on gaining access to the building. … [C]onsidering that at least one other person, by all appearances oblivious to the brouhaha … , entered the building at the same time, it does not take a leap of the imagination to surmise that [the assailants] would have gained access to the building by following another person in or forcing such a person to let them in. This negates the unlocked door as a proximate cause of the harm that befell Murphy, and makes her assailants’ murderous intent the only proximate cause. Estate of Murphy v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 02246, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER THE HOSE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DELIVER OIL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner, Goldner, was not liable for the actions of defendant independent contractor, UMEC, because Goldner did not oversee UMEC’s work and, based upon the protective measures taken by UMEC in the past, the incident was not foreseeable. UMEC delivered oil to Goldner and plaintiff allegedly tripped over the hose which ran across the sidewalk. In the past UMEC had set up safety measures to protect pedestrians from the tripping hazard:

“Generally, a party that hires an independent contractor cannot be held liable for the negligence of that independent contractor” … . “The primary justification for this rule is that one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor” … . There are various exceptions to this general rule, including “(1) [n]egligence of the employer in selecting, instructing, or supervising the contractor”; (2) “[n]on-delegable duties of the employer, arising out of some relation toward the public or the particular plaintiff”; and (3) “[w]ork which is specially, peculiarly, or inherently dangerous” … .

Under the circumstances presented, we disagree with the motion court’s finding that triable issues of fact exist as to whether Goldner may be liable for the work of an independent contractor where danger is readily foreseeable. The deposition testimony shows that Goldner did not supervise, monitor, or control UMEC when the oil would be delivered. The evidence also shows that UMEC had a prior history of consistently placing safety measures to prevent a pedestrian from tripping over the oil hose. In light of the preexisting precautions established by UMEC and lack of any complaints from prior oil deliveries, Goldner was not placed on notice of the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the danger arose “because of the negligence of the independent contractor or [its] employees, which negligence [was] collateral to the work and which [was] not reasonably to be expected” … . Linder v United Metro Energy Servs. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02250, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING THE “BORROWING STATUTE” (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) DEFENSE IN AN AMENDED ANSWER SERVED AS OF RIGHT (WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT); LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the amended answer with counterclaims, alleging for the first time that the action was untimely under the borrowing statute (CPLR 202), was properly served “as of right” (without leave of court) and the inclusion of the borrowing statute defense was not barred by the law of the case doctrine (LOTC). The opinion includes an in-depth discussion of the LOTC. The opinion rejected the arguments that certain contract provisions were conditions precedent as opposed to independent contractual obligations and certain breach of contract claims were really claims for indemnification. All of the contracts stem from residential-mortgage-backed-securities and obligations to cover losses from the alleged breach of “representations and warranties” concerning the underlying mortgages. With regard to the LOTC, the court wrote:

The doctrine of LOTC is a rule of practice premised upon sound policy that once an issue is judicially determined, further litigation of that issue should be precluded in a particular case … . It ends the matter as far as judges and courts of coordinate jurisdiction are concerned … . While it shares some characteristics of a larger family of kindred concepts, including res judicata and collateral estoppel, it is not identical … . All these concepts contemplate that the party opposing preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the underlying determination. LOTC, however, differs in that it only addresses the potentially preclusive effect of judicial determinations made during a single litigation and before a final judgment is rendered … . In addition, while res judicata and collateral estoppel are “rigid rules of limitation,” LOTC has been described as “amorphous” and involving “an element of discretion” … . Discretion, however, is circumscribed where the decision providing the basis for LOTC is by an appellate court. Thus, while LOTC cannot bind an appellate court to a trial court ruling … , it does bind a trial court (and subsequent appellate courts of coordinate jurisdiction) to follow the mandate of an appellate court, absent new evidence or a change in the law … . Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put – Back Litig., 2021 NY Slip Op 02252, First Dept 4-13-21

 

,

THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN CORPORATIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES, THEREFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS IMPLICATED AND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) APPLIED; THE CONTRACT PROPERLY PROVIDED THAT THE ARBIRTRATOR, NOT A COURT, WILL DECIDE GATEWAY ISSUES OF ARBITRABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied to the contract between corporations from different states and the contract properly provided that gateway issues of arbitrability are to be decided by the arbitrator, not the court:

Where “a contract containing an arbitration provision ‘affects’ interstate commerce, disputes arising thereunder are subject to the FAA” … . The surety agency agreement here between corporations from different states gave rise to a finding of interstate commerce and was subject to the FAA … . Although “a New York court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, limits its inquiry to whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the particular dispute” and all other questions are for the arbitrator … , the parties can agree to arbitrate gateway issues of arbitrability … .

Applying principles of New York state contract law, based on the choice of law provision governing the surety agency agreement … , and reading the contractual clauses together in context … , the provision that “[i]f a dispute or disagreement arises in connection with this Agreement, including a dispute or disagreement as to its formation or validity, such dispute or disagreement shall be submitted to arbitration,” refers any disputes over the validity or formation of the arbitration provision in question to arbitration. Accordingly, the matter here should proceed to arbitration. Matter of Bergassi Group LLC v Allied World Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 02265, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF COMMENCED A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS; THE ATTORNEYS COMMENCED AN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING AGAINST PLAINTIFF, BASED ON THE RETAINER AGREEMENT, FOR UNPAID ATTORNEY’S FEES; BOTH THE ARBITRABLE FEE DISPUTE AND THE NONARBITRABLE MALPRACTICE ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION WHILE THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS STAYED (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the retainer agreement which required arbitration of any attorney’s-fee dispute, which was entwined in the plaintiff’s malpractice action against the attorneys, required that both the arbitrable fee dispute and the nonarbitrable malpractice action be addressed in the arbitration:

There is no dispute that there is a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate any dispute regarding unpaid fees. Thus, the court must compel arbitration of defendants’ claim for unpaid fees and stay this action pending completion of the arbitration (CPLR 7503[a]). Moreover, because plaintiff’s nonarbitrable malpractice claim is inextricably intertwined with the arbitrable claim for unpaid fees, the proper course is to stay the action pending completion of the arbitration … . …

To the extent plaintiff argues that it cannot be forced to arbitrate its malpractice claim because it did not explicitly agree to do so, both the First and Second Departments have clearly found that a nonarbitrable issue can be decided in an arbitration when it is inextricably intertwined with an arbitrable issue, particularly where, as here, the determination of the arbitrable unpaid fees claim may dispose of the nonarbitrable malpractice claim … . Protostorm, Inc. v Foley & Lardner LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 02227, First Dept 4-8-21

 

, ,

IN THIS COMPLEX EXCESS INSURANCE CASE, WHICH INCLUDED A REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE LAW-OF-THE-CASE AND RES-JUDICATA DOCTRINES DID NOT DICTATE THE OUTCOME AND THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined that RLI, an excess insurance carrier, was not obligated to defend or indemnify in the underlying personal injury action. In the underlying action, plaintiff, an employee of Transel Elevator, was working on an elevator at a hotel and was injured descending stairs at the hotel. The complex relationships among the parties and several insurance carriers cannot be fairly summarized here. What follows in the First Department’s summary of the case. In essence the First Department held that prior rulings did not dictate the outcome here under law-of-the-case or res-judicata principles:

Plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaration that the excess insurance policy issued by RLI Insurance Company, Inc. was next in order of coverage for a personal injury action, in which Aspen and RLI’s common insured, Alphonse Hotel Corporation, was a defendant. The issue in this case is whether RLI, an excess insurer with a follow form policy, is bound by a prior judicial determination of this Court that the primary policy issued by Ironshore Indemnity Inc., which underlies RLI’s excess policy, covers the defendant in the personal injury action, Alphone, as an additional insured. In the prior declaratory judgment action between Aspen and Ironshore, this Court declared that the language in the additional insured endorsement extends coverage broadly to any injury causally linked to the named insured, which was satisfied in this case because the loss involved an employee of the named insured who was injured while performing the named insured’s work under the contract with the additional insured. RLI argues that it is not bound by this Court’s prior determination because it was not part of the prior declaratory judgment action. In the present declaratory judgment action, RLI wishes to relitigate the issue of whether Ironshore’s policy covers Alphonse as an additional insured. RLI relies upon the 2017 Court of Appeals decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth. (29 NY3d 313 [2017]), which interpreted language in an additional insured endorsement similar to the language here as covering the additionally insured party, vicariously, only for negligent acts of the named insured. It is undisputed in the instant case that the named insured was not in control of the instrumentality of the accident that caused the underlying personal injuries. … RLI is not bound by our prior determination and that it is entitled to a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify in the underlying personal injury action. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v RLI Ins. Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02092, First Dept 4-6-21

 

RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that two of the grounds for denying the FOIL request were invalid and the third, the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption, could not be assessed absent an in camera review of the documents. The matter was remitted:

Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that disclosure of any records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request would “interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings” … . This exemption “ceases to apply after enforcement investigations and any ensuing judicial proceedings have run their course” … . …

Respondent also failed to establish that disclosure would “identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation” … , “in the absence of any evidence that [any] person received an express or implied promise of confidentiality'” … . Respondent’s assertion that disclosure would reveal nonroutine “criminal investigative techniques or procedures” … is conclusory.

The email messages submitted by petitioner in support of the article 78 petition are covered by the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption … because they amount to “opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making”… . However, the applicability of this exemption to any other responsive records cannot be determined on this record in the absence of in camera review … . Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Investigation, 2021 NY Slip Op 02108, First Dept 4-6-21

 

,

TWO VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF TWO SUCCESSIVE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS TWICE REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT RENDERING THE THIRD FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court based upon the February, 2021 Court of Appeals ruling, determined two voluntary discontinuances of two successive foreclosure actions twice revoked the acceleration of the debt, rending the third foreclosure action timely:

… [O]n February 18, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Freedom Mtge. Corp v Engel, — NY3d —, 2021 NY Slip Op 01090 (2021), holding, inter alia, that “where acceleration occurred by virtue of the filing of a complaint in a foreclosure action, the noteholder’s voluntary discontinuance of that action constitutes an affirmative act of revocation of that acceleration as a matter of law, absent an express, contemporaneous statement to the contrary by the noteholder” (Freedom Mtge., at *6). Thus, contrary to defendants’ argument, the September 2013 voluntary discontinuance of the 2009 first foreclosure action did constitute an “affirmative act,” within six years, thereby revoking the prior election to accelerate. A second foreclosure action was commenced in October 2013 and discontinued in September 2017. To the extent there is a question surrounding plaintiff’s reason for discontinuing the second foreclosure action and whether that reason constituted a “contemporaneous statement” that they were not seeking to de-accelerate the debt, it does not change the fact that the third foreclosure action is timely because it was commenced within six years of the date of acceleration, which was October 2013. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Boktor, 2021 NY Slip Op 02124, First Dept 4-6-21

 

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