You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in a covered activity and not routine maintenance of a boiler. In addition, the First Department held that the defendant did not supervise of control the plaintiff’s work and therefore the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) do not cover workers engaged in routine maintenance … . The determination of whether a worker was engaged in a covered activity is not made at the moment of injury, but in the context of the entire project … . While plaintiff here was engaged in replacing a boiler steam valve, an activity some courts have deemed routine maintenance … , it was part of a larger project that included removing portions of the boilers via blowtorches and installation of new components by welding, thus raising an issue of fact whether it falls within covered activity … . …

Plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not a defective condition … , and the record is clear that defendants neither supervised nor controlled the work being performed by plaintiff and his coworkers at the time of the accident. Thus, this Court, upon a search of the record, dismisses plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law claims … . Gaston v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 00254, First Dept 1-19-21

 

,

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 340 (RESTRAINT OF TRADE) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED IN THIS FRAUD ACTION INVOLVING DIAMOND APPRAISALS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the General Business Law 349 (deceptive business practices) cause of action properly survived a motion to dismiss and the General Business Law 340 (restraint of trade) cause of action should have survived in this fraud action involving diamond appraisals:

Plaintiff has alleged that IGI Defendants engaged in deceptive “consumer-oriented” conduct, as the alleged fraud scheme, which involved the issuance of false appraisal certificates for over-graded diamonds, were ultimately directed at misleading consumers into buying diamonds at artificially inflated prices. Indeed, the gravamen of the amended complaint is harm to the public interest … . Plaintiff has standing to bring a claim despite not being a consumer, as courts have permitted business competitors to bring claims under GBL 349 so long as there has been harm done to the public at large … . * * *

Plaintiff has demonstrated a per se restraint of trade by pleading a conspiracy in the form of horizontal price-fixing. As alleged, the conspiracy permits diamond dealers and jewelry manufacturers who participate in the scheme to buy over-graded diamonds at lower prices, and then re-sell them to retailers and consumers at artificially inflated prices. At the same time, dealers and manufacturers who are not part of the conspiracy can only purchase accurately graded stones, or over-grades stones, at a higher price, preventing them from competing with the conspirators. The complaint also alleged an unreasonable restraint of trade under the “rule of reason” standard. Plaintiff has pleaded a conspiracy among [the defendants] and others, and facts showing that the conspirators possessed market power to produce a market-wide anticompetitive effect … . KS Trade LLC v International Gemological Inst., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00259, First Dept 1-19-21

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED; EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED DRUG TRAFFICKING AS BACKGROUND FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the suppression hearing should not have been reopened and (Molineux) evidence of uncharged drug-trafficking as background for possession of a weapon was too prejudicial:

The People’s Voluntary Disclosure Form notified defendant of the People’s intent to offer evidence of two statements he made while in custody following his arrest. In each instance, he was overheard urging a codefendant, who was his girlfriend, to tell the authorities that she was the possessor of a pistol recovered at the apartment where they were arrested. The first such statement was overheard by a special agent while defendant and the codefendant were in a holding cell. The second such statement was overheard by a detective while defendant and the codefendant were being driven to Central Booking.

At the initial Huntley hearing, the People called the special agent as a witness, but not the detective. The court ruled that the statement overheard by the special agent was admissible. No evidence was presented regarding the later statement overheard by the detective.

At a pretrial conference 16 months later, the prosecutor, explaining that the special agent was unavailable to testify because he had been transferred to an assignment outside the United States, asked the court to reopen the suppression hearing to allow the detective to testify to the statement he allegedly overheard. …

The court should not have reopened the hearing. The prosecution had a full and fair opportunity to present both of its witnesses and seek admission of both statements, but chose not to … , and the court had issued a ruling on the suppression motion … . This is not a case in which the omission of evidence at the initial hearing resulted from “a flaw in the proceeding” … . People v Nunez, 2021 NY Slip Op 00266, First Dept 1-19-21

 

,

THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR TAKING A JUDGMENT RUNS FROM THE DEFAULT AFTER THE FILING AND SERVING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, NOT A SUBSEQUENT AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the one-year period for taking a judgment after a default runs from the default after the filing and serving of the original complaint, not the amended complaint:

The mortgage foreclosure action should have been dismissed as against original borrower Melissa Eaton, pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), because plaintiff failed to “take proceedings for the entry of judgment” within one year of Eaton’s default. The time to seek a default judgment should be measured from the default in responding to the original, not the amended, complaint … . Although an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and therefore requires a new responsive pleading to avoid default … , allowing the filing of an amended complaint to effectively cure a failure to timely move for a default in responding to the original complaint would create an exception that swallows the rule. Because plaintiff did not move for a default judgment until well after one year after Eaton’s default in responding to the original complaint, and because plaintiff fails to offer any excuse for this delay … , dismissal was appropriate under CPLR 3215(c) — notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to bring a new action due to expiration of the statute of limitations … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Shay, 2021 NY Slip Op 00237, First Dept 1-14-21

 

THE LIMITED RELIEF AVAILABLE TO A DISSENTING MEMBER AFTER THE MERGER OF TWO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, addressed the relief available to a dissenting member after the merger of two limited liability companies:

Limited Liability Company Law § 1002(f) provides that, subsequent to a merger, a dissenting member possesses no interest in the surviving or resulting business entity, but is instead entitled only to a cash payment of the fair value of his or her membership as of the close of the business day prior to the merger. Moreover, Limited Liability Company Law § 1005 provides for the payment of the value of that interest or, in the event of a dispute, sets forth the procedure for determining the value of that interest.

… Farro’s [plaintiff’s] membership in the subject businesses was terminated by the merger, and he subsequently sought appraisal of the value of his interest in order to be fairly compensated therefor. Under these circumstances, his exclusive remedy was appraisal and payment, and he was precluded from maintaining any derivative claims on behalf of the subject businesses … .

… [A] member of a merged company who has a right to demand payment for his membership interest “shall not have any right at law or in equity . . . to attack the validity of the merger . . . or to have the merger . . . set aside or rescinded.” Moreover, the language of the statute makes clear that an appraisal proceeding is the member’s “sole remedy,” and no exception exists for alleged fraud or illegality in the procurement of the merger … . Farro v Schochet, 2021 NY Slip Op 00150, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

THE JURY VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURIES WAS NOT INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff had double-parked. Her granddaughter ran toward traffic after getting out of the car. Plaintiff ran to stop her granddaughter and tripped over a piece of wood used as shoring by defendants who were installing a gas line. The jury found plaintiff negligent, but found her negligence was not a proximate cause of her injuries:

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . “[W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view” … . Here, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the plaintiff was negligent, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of her falling over the piece of wood bracing that was supporting the stack of wood planking. The jury could have adopted the view that the defendants’ failure to maintain the wood they were storing in the roadway in a safe condition was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Cruz-Rivera v National Grid Energy Mgt., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00149, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

,

THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE DATE WAS PROPERLY SET; THE BUYER WAS NOT ABLE TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE: DEFENDANTS-SELLERS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DOWNPAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants-sellers were entitled to retain the downpayment after the buyer was not ready, willing and able to close on the time-of-the-essence date:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that they effectively made September 3, 2014, a time of the essence closing date, and that, although they were ready, willing, and able to close on September 3, 2014, the plaintiff was not ready, willing, and able to close on that date  … . The defendants also established, prima facie, that the plaintiff was in default by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not appear at the closing and admitted that he did not have the funds to close … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to cancel the notice of pendency.

A buyer “who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse, cannot recover the down payment,” at least where, as here, that down payment represents 10% or less of the contract price … . Ashkenazi v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 00140, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

,

THE TREE WELL COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell into a hole between a tree well and the sidewalk. The city is responsible for maintaining tree wells:

The City’s motion for summary judgment was improperly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell in a hole between a tree well and the sidewalk. According to plaintiff, the dirt in the tree well was lower than the sidewalk. The City had the obligation to maintain the tree well located in the sidewalk in a safe condition … . The size, shape, configuration and location of the Big Apple Map’s line markings in the same area of the sunken tree well, which indicate a raised or uneven portion of the sidewalk, “raise an issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the particular defect” … . Although plaintiff’s testimony and averments in regard to the precise precipitating cause of his fall are somewhat inconsistent, his consistent statements that a hole in an area between the sidewalk and tree well was a factor in causing him to fall raise triable issues as to whether a tree well defect contributed to his fall. Castro v 243 E. 138th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00107, First Dept 1-12-21

 

, , ,

CLAIMS BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS SEEKING TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR DEALING WITH VIOLENT PRISONERS WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegations by the plaintiff corrections officers concerning training and equipment for dealing with violent prisoners were not justiciable:

These claims are not justiciable. In seeking an order that would require the Department of Correction (DOC) to make specific decisions on staffing, training, and equipment, plaintiffs would have the courts involved in the management of DOC policy, thereby interfering with the discretion granted to DOC under the New York City Charter … . Unlike the claims brought in Center for Independence of the Disabled v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (184 AD3d 197 [1st Dept 2020]), plaintiffs’ claims, that DOC’s current training/equipment scheme for correction officers fails to satisfy the statutory safe workplace requirement, are not well suited for judicial review, because they do not involve the protection of a fundamental right to be free from discrimination but would instead embroil the judiciary in extensive consideration of policy, and the remedy sought would require the courts to take on the improper task of mandating the specifics of DOC’s plans and operations. Correction Officers’ Benevolent Assn., Inc. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00109, First Dept 1-12-21

 

,

THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE SECURITY COMPANY WERE PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVERE INJURIES CAUSED BY TWELVE-YEAR-OLD BOYS WHO THREW A SHOPPING CART OVER A FOURTH FLOOR RAILING STRIKING PLAINTIFF ON THE GROUND BELOW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering a new trial on damages if the plaintiffs do not stipulate to a reduction from $14.5 to $10 million, determined the defendant property owners and the security company (PSS) were properly found liable for the injuries caused by two twelve-year-old boys who threw a shopping cart over a fourth floor railing onto plaintiff on the ground below. There had been prior incidents where items were thrown over the railing and down an escalator:

… [T]he jury heard evidence that the Owner Defendants had notice of a recurring hazardous condition at the premises, namely, that youngsters frequented the location and threw various items off the elevated structure. According to witnesses and security log entries, young people threw such items as candy, food, rocks, glass bottles and garbage. Additionally, there was documentary evidence that 20 days before plaintiff’s accident, several youths had thrown a shopping cart down the escalator. Yet, according to testimony by one of defendant’s managers, the Owner Defendants did not put into place any remedial measures, such as raising the height of the rails, increasing the number of security guards or putting up warning signs, despite having notice of the recurring dangerous condition. Thus, we decline to disturb the jury’s findings apportioning liability 65% against Owner Defendants and 25% against defendant PSS. Hedges v Planned Sec. Serv. Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00117, First Dept 1-12-21

 

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