You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

REPORTING AN ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TO THE POLICE DOES NOT EVINCE MALICE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING THE REPORT; THE DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the defamation action based upon defendant’s filing a sexual assault complaint with the police was protected by qualified immunity and the nature of the complaint did not evince the malice required to overcome the qualified immunity. The sexual assault trial ended in a hung jury and defendant agreed to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal as the disposition of her charges against plaintiff. Plaintiff was formerly an assistant district attorney and defendant was a reporter for the Daily News:

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individuals who, like defendant, act “in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of [her] own affairs, in a matter where h[er] interest is concerned” … . To overcome the qualified privilege protecting defendant’s statements to the police, plaintiff was required to sufficiently allege that she published the statements with actual malice, i.e., that defendant “acted out of personal spite or ill will, with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity, or with a high degree belief that [her] statements were probably false” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of alleging actual malice sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege attaching to defendant’s statements to the police. Even as alleged in the complaint, the statements are a straightforward rendition of the incident that defendant claims occurred during a car ride with plaintiff. There was nothing excessive or “vituperative” in the character of the reported statements that would support an inference of actual malice … . Indeed, it is difficult to see how defendant could have been more succinct or restrained in her description of the events while accomplishing her purpose: to report to the police that she had been the victim of sexual assault. Sagaille v Carrega, 2021 NY Slip Op 01369, First Dept 3-9-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined County Law 52, not General Municipal Law (GML) 50, applied to a “money had and received” lawsuit against the district attorney of New York County. Although the district attorney is considered a city employee for purposes the General Municipal Law, the district attorney is elected by the citizens of New York County and is subject to the provisions of the County Law. The General Municipal Law notice of claim requirement applies only to tort actions. However, the County Law notice of claim requirement applies to this action for money had and received. No notice of claim was filed:

Defendant falls back on the position that, even if no notice of claim was required under GML section 50-k, one was required under County Law section 52. …

Although this section also refers to GML sections 50-e and 50-i, the Court of Appeals has expressly held that it applies to non-tort claims … . Further, County Law section 52 applies to county employees … . Nevertheless, plaintiffs assert that in arguing for application of the County Law, the District Attorney is trying to have it both ways, since he claims to be a city employee for purposes of the General Municipal Law, but a county employee for purposes of the County Law. It is true that New York City law considers the District Attorney to be a city employee … . However, this is no reason not to apply County Law section 52, since there is no county-level government organization in the City of New York that could be considered the District Attorney’s employer for administrative purposes such as paying his or her salary. Moreover, the District Attorney is elected by the voters of New York County, not New York City. Finally, this Court has cited County Law section 52 in holding that a notice of claim is required before filing an action against the office of a District Attorney in the City of New York … . Slemish Corp. S.A. v Morgenthau, 2021 NY Slip Op 01370, First Dept 3-9-21

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not present sufficient evidence in support of their motion to change venue. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants, who were hired to paint newly-constructed residential property, did substandard work. Suit was brought in the county of plaintiffs’ residence and business, New York County. The defendants sought to change the venue to Suffolk County where the property is located and defendants reside:

Where venue has properly been designated by the plaintiff based on the residence of either party, a defendant seeking a change of venue under CPLR 510(3) must make a detailed evidentiary showing that the nonparty witnesses will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief. The affidavit of the moving party under CPLR 510(3) must (1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue … …

… [D]efendants neglected to show with sufficient particularity the facts upon which nonparty McAulife is expected to testify. … Defendants did not submit an affidavit from McAulife, relying instead on counsel’s affirmation wherein he states that McAulife was “familiar with the work performed by defendants at 10 Two Trees Lane,” and “familiar with defendants in their business capacity.” Without further detail about when, where, and under what circumstances McAulife had occasion to become “familiar with the work,” defendants’ burden has not been met … . Defendants also fail to set forth McAulife’s name, address, and occupation, or how he would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue. The fact that the case involves work on a property located in Suffolk County does not justify an inversion of the burden of proof or relieve the moving party of its burden of establishing that the convenience of the nonparty witnesses would be served by a discretionary change of venue … . 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahone, 2021 NY Slip Op 01371, First Dept 3-9-21

 

, , , , ,

THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seven-year statute of limitations in NYC’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM) was not preempted by the one-year statute of limitations for assault in the CPLR and the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action should have survived the motion to dismiss even though the S corporation (PDR) and the defendant (Rofe) may be one and the same. The complaint alleged plaintiffs were subjected to unwanted sexual touching by defendant Rofe during voice-over coaching sessions offered by defendant S corporation (PDR):

… [W]e find that the legislative intent of the VGM was to create a civil rights remedy or cause of action such as in VAWA, rather than to extend the statute of limitations for a particular class of assaults. Since the nature of the claim is for a civil rights violation (providing a remedy for those subjected to violence because of their gender), the seven-year limitations period provided in the Administrative Code is not preempted by the CPLR statute of limitations for assault claims. * * *

To be sure, defendants may be correct that PDR essentially has no corporate structure separate from Rofe. Plaintiffs themselves do not appear to distinguish between Rofe and PDR in their brief. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Rofe was an employee of PDR and, through the submission of additional evidence in opposition to the motion to dismiss, have also sufficiently alleged that there may have been other employees of PDR who either hired, or supervised Rofe or whom Rofe hired or supervised. The acts of a corporation’s agent and the knowledge acquired by the agent are presumptively imputed to the corporation … . Thus, Rofe’s knowledge (as an alleged agent of PDR) that an employee was potentially violent or prone to sexual assaults would normally be imputed to PDR, potentially requiring PDR to supervise that employee, and the cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision should be reinstated as against PDR … . Engelman v Rofe, 2021 NY Slip Op 01321, First Dept 3-2-21

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING; THE BUILDING IS COMPLETE AND THE DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS APPLIES TO PRECLUDE THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have deferred o the judgment of the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) which allowed the construction of a 55 story condominium building. At issue was an ambiguous Zoning Resolution and the relationship between zoning lots and tax lots. The First Department held that the BSA had the necessary expertise to interpret the relevant statute and Supreme Court should have allowed the BSA’s interpretation to stand. In addition, the First Department found that the mootness doctrine had not been waived and the doctrine applied to the appeal because the building was fully completed and so steps to halt construction had been taken during the lengthy litigation:

The BSA’s interpretation of the relevant subdivision was “neither irrational, unreasonable nor inconsistent with the governing statutes” … . It rationally interpreted the resolution and properly considered Amsterdam’s reliance on the DOB’s [NYC Department of Building’s] longstanding Minkin Memo and the history of the block, as several other buildings on the block were issued certificates of occupancy, even though they also include partial tax lots. “When an agency adopts a construction which is then followed for ‘a long period of time,’ such interpretation ‘is entitled to great weight and may not be ignored'” … . …

“[T]he doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy”… . In the construction context, “several factors [are] significant in evaluating claims of mootness[,] [c]hief among them [being] a challenger’s failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation” … . Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01228, First Dept 3-2-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW GAVE THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE NURSING HOME’S ADMISSION AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF HER FATHER, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT GIVE HER THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ON HER FATHER’S BEHALF; THEREFORE THE DECEDENT’S WIFE WAS NOT BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN HER SUIT AGAINST THE NURSING HOME (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff wife’s adult daughter had the authority, pursuant to the Public Health Law, to execute the nursing home’s admission agreement on behalf of plaintiff’s husband (her father), who was deemed incapable of making health-care related decisions. In addition to the admission agreement, plaintiff’s daughter signed a binding arbitration agreement on her father’s behalf. After plaintiff’s husband died, plaintiff sued the nursing home which asserted that that the matter was subject to the arbitration agreement. The First Department held that, pursuant to the Public Health Law, plaintiff’s daughter had the authority to sign the admission agreement, because it related to her father’s health care, but she did not have the authority to sign the arbitration agreement:

The authority of the decedent’s daughter to act as a “surrogate” decision-maker pursuant to PHL 2994-d at the time decedent was admitted to JHL was limited to making decisions regarding “[a]ny treatment, service, or procedure to diagnose or treat an individual’s physical or mental condition” (PHL 2994-a[12]). Although she had authority, pursuant to PHL 2994-d, to execute the Agreement for purposes of admitting her father into the facility for health care treatment, she did not have the authority to execute the Binding Arbitration Agreement on his behalf. Such agreement was entirely optional and had no bearing on the father’s health care. Accordingly, it is entirely outside of the purview of surrogate decision-maker’s authority set forth in PHL 2994-d. Gayle v Regeis Care Ctr., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01197, First Dept 2-25-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a 200 pound fire damper when it fell from the wall. A co-worker was holding a rope tied to the damper and looped over a temporary frame. When plaintiff broke the last weld securing the fire damper the co-worker who was holding the rope was unable to keep the damper from falling:

… [T]he statute is violated where an object, while being hoisted or secured, falls because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute … , including where, as here, the inadequacy or absence of a safety device results in the uncontrolled descent of an object … . Here, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the rope proved inadequate to prevent the damper from falling … .

The eight-foot fall of the 200-pound damper that plaintiff was tasked with removing was not an ordinary construction site peril but an elevation-related hazard, within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), which was required to be secured against unregulated descent to prevent it from falling on plaintiff … . Further, regulating its descent to prevent it from falling would not have been contrary to the purpose of work … . Mayorga v 75 Plaza LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01204, First Dept 2-25-21

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT NEXT TO A GRASSY WALKWAY–SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE SAFE BY THE INSTALLATION OF A RAILING OR BARRIER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a dissent, determined the defendant property owner’s (COU’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. COU owned a campground for developmentally disabled persons. Plaintiff, a developmentally disabled adult, slipped on a narrow grassy walkway and fell down the adjacent steep embankment, striking his head on one of the rocks at the bottom. The First Department held there were questions of fact whether the accident was foreseeable and whether the area should have been made safe with a barrier or handrail:

… [A]n issue of fact does exist as to whether COU violated its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition by failing to erect a railing or barrier along the walkway. “A landowner must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [its] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . Indeed, “the duty of the owner or occupier will vary with the likelihood of plaintiff’s presence at the particular time and place of the injury. While [plaintiff’s] status is no longer determinative, considerations of who plaintiff is and what [his or her] purpose is upon the land are factors which, if known, may be included in arriving at what would be reasonable care under the circumstances” … .

… [A] landowner or occupier “has a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents which might foreseeably occur as the result of dangerous terrain on its property by posting warning signs or otherwise neutralizing dangerous conditions” … . “[E]ven if a hazard qualifies as ‘open and obvious’ as a matter of law, that characteristic merely eliminates the property owner’s duty to warn of the hazard, but does not eliminate the broader duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “A landlord’s duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition … is not satisfied by permitting a highly dangerous — but correctible — condition to remain, simply because the dangerous condition is obvious” … . Aberger v Camp Loyaltown, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01188, First Dept 2-25-21

 

,

THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE LESSER COUNT; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s attempted assault conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the jury instructions did not make it clear that if defendant was acquitted of the top count (attempted assault first) based upon the justification defense, it must not consider the lesser count (attempted assault second). Defendant was acquitted of attempted assault first and convicted of attempted assault second. Although defense counsel did not object to the jury instruction, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

The trial court instructed the jury that defendant had raised justification as a defense with respect to counts one and two and stated that the People were required to prove three elements to establish defendant’s guilt on count one, including “that defendant was not justified.” With respect to count two, the court stated that defendant had also raised the defense of justification. The court stated that as an element of count two the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the defendant was not justified.” * * *

The trial court here did not give the required Velez [131 AD3d 129] instruction. … [T]he trial court indicated to the jury that the attempted first-degree and second-degree assault charges … were wholly independent, even if the prosecution had not disproved justification as to the greater charge. The trial court … charged justification separately with respect to the two counts with no mention on the verdict sheet that acquittal on the greater charge would necessitate an acquittal on the lesser charge … . The court compounded the error by giving the same erroneous instruction in response to a note from the jury. People v Herrera, 2021 NY Slip Op 01148, First Dept 2-23-21

 

, ,

OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION; IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTION HAS MERIT OR AN EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO FILE IN SEEKING AN EXTENSION TO FILE THE CERTIFICATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, overruling precedent, determined that the failure to timely file a certificate of merit pursuant to CPLR 3012-a in a medical malpractice action does not require dismissal of the action. In addition, a showing that the action has merit and an excuse for failing to file are not necessary when seeking an extension for filing:

Had the legislature intended to permit dismissal for failure to comply with CPLR 3012-a, the statute would empower the court to do so … . Accordingly, the sanction of dismissal is not authorized and to the extent that this Court’s decisions in Blasoff v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (147 AD3d 481), Grad v Hafliger (68 AD3d 543), George v St. John’s Riverside Hosp. (162 AD2d 140), and Perez v Lenox Hill Hosp. (159 AD2d 251) are not in accord with the foregoing, they should no longer be followed.

Moreover, generally, a showing of a meritorious action and a reasonable excuse is required to vacate a pleading default and the failure to make this showing necessarily mandates dismissal of the pleading. However, since this sanction is improper in the context of a CPLR 3012-a violation, it follows that the failure to comply with this provision is not a pleading default and a plaintiff is not required to make this showing … .Accordingly, a showing of a meritorious action through the submission of an affidavit of merit and a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with CPLR 3012-a is not required to obtain an extension of time to comply with the statute. Fortune v New York City Health & Hosps. Corps., 2021 NY Slip Op 01122, First Dept 2-18-21

 

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