You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

PLAINTIFF WAS USING A CLOSED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff was using a closed A-frame ladder when it slipped out from under him:

A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident,” and plaintiff here “gave a specific reason why he used the ladder in the closed position” … . Defendants also did not elicit any evidence that it would have been plaintiff’s “‘normal and logical response'” to use the taller ladder that they allege was available to plaintiff at the time of his accident … . Similarly, as for plaintiff’s putative recalcitrance, defendants failed to establish that, among other things: plaintiff knew that the taller ladder was available for his use; he was expected to use the taller ladder for his work; he “‘chose for no good reason not to do so'” … ; and, he refused to follow a specific instruction to use the taller ladder for his work … . Ultimately, “[d]efendants’ contentions would amount to, at most, comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) violation … . Morales v 2400 Ryer Ave. Realty, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00498, First Dept 1-28-21

 

, ,

THE NYC ADMINSTRATIVE CODE REQUIRES ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TO REPAIR SIDEWALK FLAGS OVER 1/2 INCH; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE FLAG WAS THREE INCHES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was evidence the sidewalk flag was three inches high and the NYC Administrative Code requires the abutting property owner to repair any flags over 1/2 inch:

The Administrative Code of the City of New York requires owners of real property abutting any sidewalk to maintain that sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, which includes repaving, repairing and replacing defective sidewalk flags (Administrative Code § 7-210[3]). Furthermore, property owners are specifically required to, at their own cost and expense, repave or repair any portion of the sidewalk that constitutes a tripping hazard where “the vertical grade differential between adjacent sidewalk flags is greater than or equal to one half inch” ,,, ,

Plaintiff testified at the 50-h hearing that he tripped on a raised sidewalk flag that was approximately three inches higher than the adjacent flag, There is also photographic evidence that shows a visibly raised sidewalk flag in the area he identified as where his accident occurred. Tropper v Henry St. Settlement, 2021 NY Slip Op 00397, First Dept 1-26-21

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted and, upon a search of the record, summary judgment should have been granted to defendant in this foreclosure action. The proof of mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was not sufficient:

Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . The copy of the certified mail receipt it submitted is undated and blank in other parts, and shows the signature of someone other than defendant. The copy of the pre-paid first-class mail envelope has no recipient’s name or address on it. Further, the affidavits plaintiff submitted do not demonstrate the loan servicer’s employees’ familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of the servicer that had mailed the 90-day notices and the notice of default. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Calhoun, 2021 NY Slip Op 00398, First Dept 1-26-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S INCONSISTENT DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED A CREDIBILITY QUESTION BUT DID NOT REQUIRE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY SHE DID NOT USE THE HANDRAILS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM ALLEGING THE HANDRAILS WERE DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this stairway slip and fall case, determined the plaintiff’s inconsistent deposition testimony raised an issue of credibility but did not warrant summary judgment dismissing the action. However the claim relating to the handrails of the should have been dismissed because plaintiff testified she did not use the handrails:

While plaintiff’s initial deposition testimony was later contradicted by the affidavit she submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, after a break in the deposition, she testified that she had misspoken, and changed her testimony significantly as to how her fall on defendant’s staircase occurred. Plaintiff’s latter version of the accident is, in the main, consistent with her affidavit. Thus, while the change of testimony mid-deposition presents an issue of credibility for the jury, the affidavit does not present the kind of feigned issue of fact that requires the court to disregard the affidavit … . Since plaintiff’s expert relied upon the version of the accident described in plaintiff’s affidavit, his affidavit was properly considered … . Plaintiff’s inability to identify uneven riser heights as the cause of her fall is not fatal to her claim, as her post-break deposition testimony permits the inference that her fall was caused by uneven riser heights … .

However, plaintiff’s affidavit presents a feigned issue of fact as to whether her fall was caused by any defect of the staircase handrails and must be disregarded with respect thereto … . Plaintiff testified consistently through the entirety of her deposition that she was not holding the handrail, that it was her custom and practice not to use handrails on short flights of steps, and that at no time during her fall did she attempt, or even think of attempting, to put her hand on the handrail. Dixon v Sum Realty, Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 00367, First Dept 1-21-21

 

, ,

THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s “terrorism” conviction, determined the evidence was legally insufficient and the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant threatened to shoot “you guys,” but the threat was personal in nature and was not directed at a “civilian population:”

The evidence of defendant’s “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” (Penal Law § 490.20[1]) was legally insufficient to support the conviction … . We also find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence in that respect … .

At the end of an altercation, defendant, a Muslim, threatened to shoot “you guys,” referring to several Bangladeshi worshippers at defendant’s mosque. Although there was evidence presented at trial that defendant bore animus toward Bangladeshi people, the threat mentioned no group or population and instead appears to have been based on a personal dispute defendant had with one or more of his fellow worshippers over money or a missing phone. Accordingly, this threat was not directed at a “civilian population” as that term was explained by the Court of Appeals in People v Morales (20 NY3d 240, 247 [2012]). To find that defendant’s act amounted to a terroristic threat would trivialize the definition of terrorism by applying it “loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” … . People v DeBlasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 00376, First Dept 1-21-21

 

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

 

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