You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THE NYPD OFFICER WHO EMPLOYED A PROHIBITED CHOKEHOLD ON ERIC GARNER, WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO ERIC’S DEATH, WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM THE NYPD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the police officer who employed a prohibited chokehold on Eric Garner, which contributed to Eric’s death, was properly dismissed from employment by the New York Police Department (NYPD):

Substantial evidence supports respondents’ conclusion that petitioner recklessly caused injury to Eric Garner by maintaining a prohibited chokehold for 9 to 10 seconds after exigent circumstances were no longer present, thereby disregarding the risk of injury (Penal Law §§ 15.05[3]; 120.00[2] …).

We do not find the penalty “so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” … . Conduct far less serious than petitioner’s has been found by the Court of Appeals to have a “destructive impact . . . on the confidence which it is so important for the public to have in its police officers” … . Matter of Pantaleo v O’Neill, 2021 NY Slip Op 01857, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

AN EMAIL INFORMING PLAINTIFF THAT DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WOULD NOT APPEAL THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPELLATE PANEL DID NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY TERMINATE THE FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION MATTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an email from the attorney defendants to the plaintiff did not unequivocally terminate the firm’s representation of plaintiff before the Workers’ Compensation Board:

Where, as here, defendants were retained in writing to represent plaintiff in all proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Board related to his claim, plaintiff made a sufficient showing of a continuing relationship with regard to that proceeding to support his contention of continuous representation … . Defendants’ statement in an email that they would not pursue an appeal to the Third Department after having lost before the Workers’ Compensation appellate panel on the issue of whether plaintiff was an employee, did not “unequivocally” terminate the representation in the workers’ compensation matter, which remained pending following the administrative review … . This is particularly true in light of the terms of the retainer agreement. Schwenger v Weitz, Kleinick & Weitz, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 01869, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT, UNDER THE COMMON LAW, UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the written-indemnification-clause requirement in Workers’ Compensation Law section 11 does not require that the document be signed to be enforceable:

Plaintiff was injured while engaged in renovation of an apartment in Park Regis’s cooperative building. The motion court correctly concluded that ASA, plaintiff’s employer, was bound by the provisions of the alteration agreement between Park Regis and the nonparty cooperative shareholder lessees requiring the lessees’ general contractor to indemnify and procure insurance in favor of Park Regis (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 …). …

Even if the alteration agreement were not signed by ASA, ASA would still be bound by it, because the record shows that it intended to be bound by it (see Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363, 369 [2005] [“nothing in the language of (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11) or its legislative history (suggests) that, in addition to requiring a written indemnification clause, the Legislature intended to deviate from the common-law rule that written documents can be enforced even if they are not signed”]). ASA’s field supervisor and project manager testified that ASA “signs every alteration agreement[]” before commencing work, that he believed ASA had done so in connection with this project, that he understood ASA to be bound by the terms of the alteration agreement requiring it to procure insurance for and indemnify Park Regis, and that ASA had indeed procured insurance for Park Regis as required by the alteration agreement. Shala v Park Regis Apt. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 01870, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, issued a preclusion order after a compliance conference because no motion was pending:

Order … which, upon granting plaintiff’s motion to reargue, reinstated his lost earnings claim but precluded the claim for years which tax returns are not produced to defendants, unanimously reversed, without costs, and the claim reinstated without limitation.

The underlying preclusion order should not have been issued sua sponte at a compliance conference, with no motion pending … . Sullivan v Snow, 2021 NY Slip Op 01873, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT INLCUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF A PATTERN OF DELAY; THEREFORE THE “FAILURE TO PROSECUTE” EXCEPTION IN CPLR 205 (A) DID NOT APPLY; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint was timely pursuant to the six-month extension afforded by CPLR 205 (a).  The dismissal of the complaint did not include any specific findings of a general pattern of delay. Therefore the six-month extension was not precluded:

In 2018, Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint in the prior, 2010 foreclosure action for plaintiff’s failure to seek a default judgment within one year of defendant’s default. The dismissal order did not include any findings of specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation, as required to preclude the application of CPLR 205(a) for failure to prosecute … . Under the circumstances, the court should not have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the present action as time-barred, as this action was timely brought within six months after the motion court dismissed plaintiff’s first foreclosure action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kim, 2021 NY Slip Op 01876, First Dept 3-25-21

 

, ,

WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that where the basis of a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is fraud, the statute of limitations is six years:

[Defendant] Katten contends that even if the claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is taken at face value, the statute of limitations is three years because plaintiff seeks damages, not equitable relief … . However, “a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of actual fraud is subject to a six-year limitations period” … . Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Albert Hallac for breach of fiduciary duty is based on allegations of actual fraud; hence, the statute of limitations for the claim against Katten for aiding and abetting Hallac’s breach of fiduciary duty is six years. Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 2021 NY Slip Op 01881, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE WAS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN DEPOSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case was premature because plaintiff had not been deposed:

Plaintiff alleges that after crossing Pearl Street at the intersection with Whitehall Street he was struck from behind by defendants’ box truck, while he was on the curb/lip of the sidewalk. According to the affidavit of the driver, defendant Rosado, plaintiff was distracted by talking on a cell phone, and walked into the side of the truck while it was already making a right turn.

While plaintiff was not required to demonstrate the absence of comparative negligence on his part, his motion was premature in that defendants did not have the opportunity to depose him … . Bey v Rosado, 2021 NY Slip Op 01840, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT DEPARTED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD FOR TAX PREPARATION SERVICES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant accountant departed from the professional standard for tax preparation:

“A party alleging a claim of accountant malpractice must show that there was a departure from the accepted standards of practice” … . Plaintiff does not identify any applicable professional standard which would have required defendants to inquire whether the transactions at issue were approved in accordance with the procedures contained in the operating agreement. To the contrary, the standards proffered by plaintiff’s expert permit an accountant engaged for tax preparation services to rely on information furnished by the taxpayer unless it appears to be incorrect, incomplete or inconsistent. There is no allegation here that the information provided to defendants was incorrect, incomplete or inconsistent. Deane v Brodman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01842, First Dept 3-25-21

 

, , , , ,

THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) although guarantees generally are not instruments for the payment of money within the meaning of CPLR 3213, the language of the guarantee was unconditional and therefore met the criteria of such an instrument; (2) the COVID-19-related provision of the NYC Administrative Code and executive orders, prohibiting enforcement of commercial lease guarantees, do not apply where the business were not required to cease operations; (3) the warranty of habitability was not available as a defense because of the language of the guarantee; and (4) a commercial tenant cannot assert the warranty of habitability:

While a guarantee of both payment and performance does not qualify as an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213 … , paragraph 1 of the guaranty signed by defendants includes an unconditional obligation to pay all rent and additional rent owed under the sublease, and therefore does so qualify … ; “it required no additional performance by plaintiff[] as a condition precedent to payment or otherwise made defendant[s’] promise to pay something other than unconditional” … .

While the prohibition on the enforcement of commercial lease guaranties against natural persons under Administrative Code of City of NY § 22-1005 applies to businesses that were required to “cease operation” or “close to members of the public” under executive orders 202.3, 202.6, or 202.7, issued in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants never asserted that the nonparty subtenant ceased operations or closed to the public as a result of those orders.

Defendants’ claim that they properly raised warranty of habitability defenses under the sublease is without merit. Such defenses are not available to defendants because all defenses under the guaranty, with the exception of prior payment, were waived. Moreover, a commercial tenant cannot avail itself of the statutory warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b …). iPayment, Inc. v Silverman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01846, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the Appellate Term and disagreeing with other courts, determined the failure to show up for an independent medical exam (IME) is a “policy issue” warranting the denial of no-fault benefits and the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff:

… [A]n insurer who denies a claim for first-party No-Fault benefits on the basis of the injured person’s failure to attend an IME properly does so by checking box 4 on the denial of claim form, and therefore an injured person’s failure to attend an IME is a “policy issue” both according to the denial of claim form and for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(c). Kamara Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01848, First Dept 3-25-21

 

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