You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

FOIL REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) RECORDS RELEVANT TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s FOIL request for the records relevant to a traffic accident from the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) should have been granted:

The only FOIL exemption at issue in this case applies to records that “are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with . . . judicial proceedings” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][i]).

… [W]e find that Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) hearings are “judicial proceedings” … . The TVB of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, an administrative agency that was legislatively created to adjudicate traffic violation charges for the purpose of reducing caseloads of courts in New York City … . At a TVB hearing, the accused motorist has a right to be represented by counsel … and the administrative law judge presiding over the hearing must determine whether the police officer has established the charges by clear and convincing evidence … . Although the CPL and the CPLR are generally “not binding on” TVB … , it has been held that the motorist “is entitled to the issuance of a properly worded judicial subpoena duces tecum under CPLR 2307 requiring the production of relevant records” … .

… NYPD asserts that any release of documents would somehow tip the hand of the TVB’s prosecuting attorney or prevent the prosecutor from testing the recollection of witnesses. Yet, NYPD concedes that these documents would be released to the motorist who would not be under any legal admonition not to release the documents to others. Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00119, First Dept 1-12-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE TWO OFFENSES, WHICH OCCURRED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND WERE UNRELATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the two separate crimes which occurred on different dates should not have been joined for a single trial. Defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident on September 4, 2011, and DWI on January 15, 2012. The officer who arrested defendant in January 2012 for DWI testified he recognized the vehicle and driver from the video and stills taken during the September 2011 incident:

Offenses are joinable even though they are based on different criminal transactions if proof of one offense would be material and admissible as evidence in chief upon a trial of the other offense or the offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions … . Severance of counts contained in a single indictment should be granted when a defendant shows that the counts were not joinable under the statutory criteria … .

… [N]one of the proof necessary for each offense was material to the other. The facts underlying defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident stemmed from a September 4, 2011 incident. The victim was lying on the road of the Henry Hudson Parkway. After other drivers stopped to try and pull the victim out of the road, a dark Acura ran him over and continued driving without stopping. … There was video footage and still pictures from the toll plaza that showed the cars of the drivers who stopped to help, followed immediately by the dark Acura. … Defendant was the registered owner of the dark Acura.

The DWI conviction was based on an incident that occurred four months later, on January 15, 2012. At that time, defendant was observed by police officers weaving in and out of his lane and driving 85 mph in a 50-mph zone. The officer who arrested defendant for the DWI was permitted to testify relative to the charge of leaving the scene that he recognized the vehicle and driver in the video and stills taken on September 4, 2011 as the same vehicle and person he stopped on January 15, 2012. People v Santiago, 2021 NY Slip Op 00130, First Dept 1-12-21

 

,

A JUROR WHO WAS A RETIRED DETECTIVE ACTED AS AN UNSWORN EXPERT WITNESS IN THE DELIBERATIONS; “MOLINEUX” EVIDENCE DEFENDANT LOOKED AT PORNOGRAPHY BEFORE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTING THE SEX-RELATED OFFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s sex abuse and burglary convictions, determined: (1) a juror who was a retired detective acted as an unsworn expert witness in the deliberations; and (2) evidence defendant looked at pornography before allegedly committing the crimes was not necessary to prove identity and any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect:

… [A] juror who was a retired detective opined on the feasibility of DNA and fingerprint extraction, the likelihood that tests were conducted and evidence was suppressed regarding a set of keys that were in evidence, and the probability that defendant was lying based on his speech patterns and body language. These opinions, which were communicated to and apparently influenced the jury, were within the scope of the juror’s specialized expertise and were explicitly offered on the basis thereof, and at least some of these opinions concerned material issues, including defendant’s credibility and whether he entered the victim’s apartment by mistake … . …

… [E]vidence that defendant accessed a pornography website on the phone shortly before committing the charged offense should have been excluded at trial as improper propensity evidence. This evidence was not admissible to establish defendant’s intent in sexually abusing the victim, which could be readily inferred from the charged conduct itself … . While it may have been admissible to establish defendant’s intent in entering the victim’s apartment, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudice … . People v Alvarez, 2021 NY Slip Op 00092, First Dept 1-7-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE ALLEGING AN ANTI-GAY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff police officer’s employment discrimination complaint should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff is a gay man and the complaint alleged actionable discrimination claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law (HRL):

… [P]laintiff was … exposed to two sergeants who quickly surmised, based on [plaintiff’s] responses to their constant homophobic slurs directed at civilians and gay officers, that plaintiff was gay. Other officers joined in, condoned and encouraged by the sergeants, and plaintiff thereafter endured over a year of homophobic derision, harassment, and verbal abuse. The foregoing establishes a claim for employment discrimination, via hostile work environment, under the State and City HRLs … .

… [P]laintiff was repeatedly required to enter a holding cell, by himself, with prisoners still inside, while plaintiff carried metal and wooden cleaning implements. This was potentially dangerous, as plaintiff could have been overwhelmed and attacked by the prisoners.

… .Plaintiff was also required to go on foot patrol alone during the midnight shift in dangerous areas at the 77th Precinct; other officers patrolled with partners. Doe v New York City Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00009, First Dept 1-5-21

 

THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE TYPE OF GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed but the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when a pipe rolled over his foot, not the type of gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240 (1). But the accident related to the means and methods of the work over which the defendant general contractor (Gilbane) may have exercised supervisory control:

Plaintiff was injured while employed by nonparty Titan Industrial Corporation (TIC) when a pipe rolled onto his foot. On the day of the accident, plaintiff’s foreman instructed plaintiff and his two coworkers to insert some pipes under a concrete planter to relocate it. Plaintiff and his coworkers were pushing and pulling the planter from the sides, while the foreman was pushing it with a bobcat, when one of the pipes rolled over plaintiff’s foot, causing an injury. …

The operation, according to plaintiff’s foreman, was normally performed with two Bobcats, one pushing and one pulling the load; in this case, however, the operation was performed with only one Bobcat because the others were in use elsewhere on the site. Gilbane required that onsite Bobcat operators be licensed and kept track of all such operating engineers; in the event an unlicensed person were found to be operating a Bobcat contrary to instructions, the subcontractor would be notified by Gilbane and instructed to shut down the equipment. It is undisputed that the foreman who was operating the Bobcat involved in plaintiff’s accident lacked the required license and, if [the onsite supervisor’s] testimony is to be credited, should have been prohibited from doing so by Gilbane. Lemache v MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00019, First Dept 1-5-21

 

,

AN ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION ON AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE IS NOT A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; THEREFORE THE ANSWER DID NOT VOID THE POLICY WHICH REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question in the application for insurance coverage was ambiguous. Therefore the answer to the question was not a material misrepresentation and the policy remains in full force and effect:

A misrepresentation in an insurance application is material, voiding the policy ab initio, if, had the true facts been known, either the insurer would not have issued the policy or would have charged a higher premium … . Even an innocent misrepresentation is sufficient to void the policy … . However, “an answer to an ambiguous question on an insurance application cannot be the basis for a claim of misrepresentation” in procuring insurance … .

Here, on defendants-respondents’ insurance application submitted to plaintiff, Question 9, which asked “Any uncorrected code violations?” is ambiguous. While the plain language asks whether there are “any uncorrected fire code violations” and not uncorrected fire code notices of violation, different witnesses provided five different understandings as to what the question was asking. In any event, this Court has used the term “violation” to mean the issuance of a citation … . Indeed, the question is not even posed as a complete sentence but a sentence fragment lacking a verb, which could have clarified the question. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v Monte Carlo, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00044, First Dept 1-5-21

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant had constructive notice of a raised sidewalk flag and whether the defect was trivial in this slip and fall case:

Although the property manager states that the premises were regularly inspected, and any condition observed would have been reported to him, reference to a generalized inspection practice “is insufficient to satisfy defendant[‘s] burden of establishing that [he] lacked notice of the alleged condition of the sidewalk prior to the accident” … .

As a general rule, whether a defect is trivial depends on “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … . The relevant inquiry is whether the defect was “difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” … . Although defendant relies on photographs to prove his defense that the defect is trivial, summary judgment should not be granted where, as here, “the dimensions of the alleged defect are unknown and the photographs and descriptions inconclusive” … . Trinidad v Catsimatidis, 2021 NY Slip Op 00047, First Dept 1-5-21

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FUNCTIONED AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED UNIT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER; PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED BEFORE BRINGING THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the corporate entities plaintiff sued in this slip and fall case function as a single integrated entity with plaintiff’s employer, the nursing home where he was injured. Plaintiff had applied for and received Workers’ Compensation benefits and then brought this Labor 240(1) action. The First Department held that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was Workers’ Compensation:

… [W]e find that Hopkins Ventures has shown ownership of 100% of both KFG Land and KFG Operating and that it exercised complete managerial and financial control over both companies, operating them as if they were a single integrated entity. Since the evidentiary proof submitted by KFG Land was sufficient to make out its prima facie case, that the LLCs functioned as a single integrated entity in connection with the joint venture of acquiring and operating the property and nursing home, the exclusivity provisions of the WCL apply. Plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. …

Although the dissent reaches the underlying merits of plaintiff’s cross appeal concerning the dismissal of his Labor Law §240(1) on the basis that he was not engaged in a “repair” or “alteration” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident, we affirm on the ground that even if plaintiff was engaged in alteration or repair, the exclusivity provisions of the WCL would be his sole remedy since he applied for and received those benefits. Fuller v KFG L & I, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07998, First Dept 12-29-20

 

,

A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord (West 16th) was not liable for an injury from a non-defective cellar door which closed and struck plaintiff’s head:

It is well established that an out-of-possession landlord like West 16th “is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of the demised premises unless it (1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” … .

The lease did not obligate West 16th to maintain or repair the cellar doors or to install an auxiliary safety device on the cellar doors, which were fully functional and not broken in any way. …

Further, the alleged defect is not a structural defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision. … [W]e have previously held that the failure to install a safety device to hold such doors open—the precise negligence alleged against West 16th herein—was “not a structural defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” … . Matias v West 16th Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08000, First Dept 12-29-20

 

,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE WAS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department held the denial of a motion to preclude evidence was not an appealable order:

[Supreme Court] denied defendants-appellants’ motion to preclude evidence of any alleged misrepresentations and/or breaches of contract not previously pled in the second amended complaint in support of the respective fraud and breach of contract causes of action, and held that plaintiffs could rely upon such evidence by amending their interrogatory answers in the future, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

“An evidentiary ruling made before trial is generally reviewable only in connection with an appeal from a judgment rendered after trial” … . Here, defendants’ motion to preclude, which was made to limit plaintiffs’ allegations to those asserted in a second amended complaint, notwithstanding that outstanding discovery remained, including critical depositions, did not involve an evidentiary issue pertaining to the merits of the controversy or a substantial right to justify appellate review (see CPLR 5701[a][2][iv], [v] …). National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v Razzouk, 2020 NY Slip Op 08004, First Dept 12-29-20

 

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