You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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

 

FORBEARANCE CAN BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION CREATING A VALID CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded dismissing the breach of contract cause of action in the multi-million dollar lawsuit involving Russian oil and gas. The opinion is too detailed to summarize here. On the breach of contract cause of action, the court noted that forbearance can be adequate consideration creating a valid contract:

“A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other” … . Indeed, “any basic contemporary definition would include the idea that [consideration] consists of either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee” … . “The slightest consideration is sufficient to support the most onerous obligation” … . …

When plaintiff first agreed to join defendants in the oil business, he allegedly did so as a one-third partner. According to the Undisputed Statement of Facts, the parties disputed their respective obligations and “discussed [for several years] options for compensating [plaintiff] for the stock and cash he caused to be transferred.” In 2001, when the parties drafted the Investment Agreement, plaintiff agreed to a 15% stake and a 15% share of the profits, a marked reduction in what he would have expected to receive as an alleged one-third partner. Plaintiff also agreed to forego any right to profits pre-dating October 2001. …

The record thus suggests … that the 2001 Investment Agreement was a binding contract supported by plaintiff’s forbearance. Notably, … defendants began to perform under the agreement … , … suggesting that it was a binding accord for which plaintiff’s forbearance had supplied consideration. Lebedev v Blavatnik, 2021 NY Slip Op 01002, First Dept 2-16-21

 

,

DEFENDANT, A MEMBER OF THE PROUD BOYS, WAS CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT OF A MEMBER OF ANTIFA; A BOOT IS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE PROUD BOYS AND ANTIFA PROPERLY ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the conviction of a member of the Proud Boys for the attempted gang assault of an Antifa member. The court held that a boot may constitute a dangerous instrument within the meaning of the assault statutes. In addition, the First Department noted that the People were properly allowed to call an expert witness on extremist groups to explain the animosity between the Proud Boys and Antifa:

Defendants’ intent and attempt to cause physical injury were demonstrated by defendant Kinsman, who while wearing brown leather boots, repeatedly kicked the victim while she was still on the ground and after she had just been repeatedly kicked by another Proud Boy and by defendant Hare who punched the victim and also kicked her multiple times while he was wearing Doc Marten boots … . …

The court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to call an expert witness on extremist groups. Some background information regarding the ideology and past conduct of the Proud Boys was permissible to explain the preexisting animosity between the Proud Boys and Antifa at the time of the incident at issue … . … While some of the evidence regarding the Proud Boys’ practices, and in particular racist remarks made by the group’s founder, were immaterial to the issues at trial, and their potential for prejudice outweighed any probative value, the court issued a limiting instruction that the background information provided by the expert was not proof of the defendants’ mental states. People v Kinsman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01009, First Dept 2-15-21

 

,

SNATCHING A PURSE DANGLING FROM THE VICTIM’S ARM DID NOT INVOVLE THE PHYSICAL FORCE NECESSARY FOR ROBBERY THIRD, RENDERING THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s robbery 3rd conviction to petit larceny, determined that the physical force element was not involved rendering the conviction against the weight of the evidence:

Judgment * * * unanimously modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the robbery conviction to petit larceny and reducing the sentence on that conviction to time served …. .

Defendant’s conduct in snatching the purse that was dangling from the victim’s arm did not involve the physical force required to sustain a conviction of robbery (see People v Dobbs, 24 AD3d 1043 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Middleton, 212 AD2d 809, 810 [2d Dept 1995]; compare People v Santiago, 62 AD2d 572, 579 [2d Dept 1978], aff’d 48 NY2d 1023 [1980]). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of robbery in the third degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, and that verdict was against the weight of the evidence … . People v Kourouma, 2021 NY Slip Op 01011, First Dept 2-16-21

 

,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY BECAUSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER THE REQUESTED BODY CAM VIDEOS VOLUNTARILY WHILE THE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING; THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees in this FOIL action which sought police body cam videos for an incident involving deadly force. Petitioner was the prevailing party because the respondents voluntarily provided the videos while the proceeding was pending:

… [P]etitioner substantially prevailed when respondents, during the pendency of this proceeding, disclosed the records sought in the FOIL request … . “[T]he voluntariness of . . . disclosure is irrelevant to the issue of whether petitioner substantially prevailed” … . …

… [R]espondents had no reasonable basis for denying access to the records sought. To invoke the FOIL exemption applicable to records that ‘are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations’ … , an ‘agency must identify the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents’ … . ‘Put slightly differently, the agency must still fulfill its burden under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(b) to articulate a factual basis for the exemption’ … . In response to the FOIL request, NYPD did identify the generic kinds of documents at issue; it is undisputed that the responsive records, which have now been disclosed, were videos recorded by body cameras worn by NYPD officers during an incident in which NYPD used deadly force. However, NYPD’s assertions in response to the FOIL request that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing internal investigation into the incident, which was being conducted by the Force Investigation Division at the time, was conclusory in the absence of any factual showing as to how disclosure would have interfered with that investigation.” Matter of Dioso Faustino Freedom of Info. Law Request v New York City, 2021 NY Slip Op 00907, First Dept 2-11-21

 

, ,

PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION IN THIS EXECUTIVE LAW 63 SPECIAL PROCEEDING SOUNDING IN FRAUD STEMMING FROM UNCONSCIONABLE EQUIPMENT FINANCE LEASES AND OPPRESSIVE DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES; RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY, WHICH IS DISFAVORED IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined the respondents in this Executive Law 63 special proceeding were not entitled to additional discovery, including depositions, and petitioners were entitled to summary determination in this fraud and deceptive business practices action. The petition, brought by the NYS Attorney General, alleged respondents engaged in fraud and deception in having small businesses sign unconscionable equipment finance leases (EFLs) for credit card processing equipment leading to oppressive debt collection practices. The court noted that discovery in a special proceeding is disfavored and is permitted only on leave of court upon a showing of “ample need:”

Supreme Court correctly found that petitioners demonstrated respondents’ liability under Executive Law § 63(12). Under Executive Law § 63(12), “the test for fraud is whether the targeted act has the capacity or tendency to deceive or creates [*5]an atmosphere conducive to fraud” … . “Executive Law § 63(12) was meant to protect not only the average consumer, but also the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous” … . “[P]ublic reports and lawsuits of alleged fraud are sufficient to put a plaintiff on inquiry notice of fraud” … . * * *

We held in our prior decision that allegations that the [respondents] created legal obligations through misrepresentations and fraud and then attempted to enforce those obligations through abusive pre-litigation and litigation practices sufficiently demonstrated that the [respondents’] debt collection activities and procuring of default judgments were “objectively baseless” … . Matter of People of the State of New York v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00914, First Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE NYC HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 PART I, WHICH IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON A LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO REFUSE TO RENEW A RENT-STABILIZED LEASE, DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS HOLDOVER PROCEEDING WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE LAW WAS ENACTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019  (HSTPA) Part I did not apply to did not apply to the instant holdover proceeding which was pending when the HSTPA was enacted:

As amended by HSTPA Part I … , Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-511(c)(9)(b), which governs an owner’s right to refuse to renew a rent-stabilized lease on the ground that the owner seeks the unit for his or her own personal use and occupancy as a primary residence, limits the owner to the recovery of only one dwelling unit in a building, requires proof of “immediate and compelling necessity” for the owner’s use, and requires that the owner provide an equivalent housing accommodation for any tenant over the age of 62 and in occupancy for 15 years or more. …

… [F]our months after Appellate Term issued its decision in this proceeding, the Court of Appeals decided Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (35 NY3d 332 [2020]), holding that HSTPA Part F, relating to rent overcharges, could not be applied to pending cases because “application of these amendments to past conduct would not comport with our retroactivity jurisprudence or the requirements of due process” … .

We conclude that the same reasoning applies with equal measure to HSTPA Part I. Matter of Harris v Israel, 2021 NY Slip Op 00796, First Dept 2-9-21

 

, ,

THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK CAN BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE NYC APARTMENTS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the four-year lookback period can be applied to determine whether there was a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments which, under Roberts (12 NY3d 270 [2009]) should not have been deregulated because the landlord was receiving “J-51” tax benefits. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied and plaintiff’s motion to certify a class was properly granted:

… [I]n pre-Roberts cases where landlords relied on DHCR [NYC Division of Housing & Community Renewal] guidance there could be no fraudulent scheme to deregulate. * * *

[W]e have not extended this rule to cases decided after Roberts … . To the contrary, our jurisprudence holds that an owner may not flout the teachings of Roberts. * * *

The hallmarks of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate are present here. … Defendant deregulated the apartment after Roberts was decided and did not re-register with DHCR, despite receiving J-51 tax benefits … . During the four-year period preceding commencement of the lawsuit, plaintiff was still not given a rent-stabilized lease. … Defendant’s actions cannot be deemed to be prompt compliance. Rather, at this stage, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a six-year scheme to illegally deregulate 27 units or approximately 32% of the building. Montera v KMR Amsterdam LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00805, First Dept 2-9-21

 

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