You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

ALTHOUGH COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE PROPER PARTY TO SUE WAS ARGUABLY NOT EXCUSABLE, THE DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although the excuse for not filing on time was not a good one, counsel’s failure to identify the proper party to sue, the defendant had timely knowledge of the nature of the action:

Although counsel’s error in identifying the proper party was arguably not excusable, the error was not due to any fault or delay on the part of petitioner, and “[t]he failure to set forth a reasonable excuse is not, by itself, fatal to the application” … . This is particularly true where, as here, the record shows that respondents received timely and actual notice of the essential facts underlying plaintiff’s claim … .

Here, the incident report gave respondents actual knowledge of the pertinent facts constituting the claim. The report makes clear that petitioner fell on the sidewalk, and the photographs contained in the report show that the sidewalk is cracked and raised, presenting a tripping hazard … . Furthermore, according to petitioner’s 50-h testimony, her fall was notable enough that a security guard immediately called his supervisor to the scene, and there is no indication that respondents are prejudiced by the delay … . English v Board of Trustees of the Fashion Inst. of Tech., 2020 NY Slip Op 05450, First Dept 10-6-20

 

, ,

ACTION TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST A DELAWARE DISSOLVED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF CANCELLATION HAS NOT BEEN NULLIFIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action to domesticate and enforce a foreign judgment after defendant corporation had been dissolved could not be maintained:

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant, a Delaware limited liability company, to domesticate and enforce a foreign judgment in its favor several months after defendant had been dissolved and a certificate of cancellation filed (see 6 Del C § 18-203[a]). As the certificate of cancellation has not been nullified and plaintiff does not seek nullification, plaintiff cannot maintain this action (6 Del C § 18-803[b]) … . Epie v Herakles Farms, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05283, First Dept 10-1-20

 

LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK; HERE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE TOP OF A TRACTOR-TRAILER; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. The court noted that liability under Labor Law 200 does not require that the plaintiff be engaged in construction work:

Plaintiff was injured when he fell to the ground from the top of a tractor-trailer, as he was attempting to manually roll out a tarp to cover trash in the trailer, as required by [defendant] Tully. The trailer with the allegedly defective tarping mechanism was owned by Strength and leased to plaintiff’s employer.

Plaintiff is entitled to the protection afforded by Labor Law § 200 for his work because that section codifies the common-law duty of an owner to provide workers with a safe place to work, which is not limited to construction work … .

The record presents an issue of fact as to Tully’s authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury … . Plaintiff testified that Tully directed him in how to proceed at the facility and mandated that he cover the trash with the tarp, and the facility manager testified that Tully had a policy prohibiting drivers from standing on the tops of trailers. There is also a factual issue as to whether Tully permitting the tractor-trailer to be overfilled created the condition that may have cause plaintiff’s injuries … . Landron v Wil-Cor Realty Co. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05287, First Dept 10-1-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside his resentence was properly denied. Defendant was not informed of the period of post-release supervision (PRS) at the time of the original plea and the original sentence, but was so informed at the resentence:

In 2002, defendant pleaded guilty without being informed of the mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the promised sentence … , and was sentenced in a proceeding in which the court also did not pronounce that component of the sentence … . Seven years later, he was returned to court with his attorney for further proceedings. Defense counsel advised the court that he had spoken to his client who was prepared to accept the amended sentence. The court explained that five years of PRS would be imposed. Defense counsel responded that that was fine. The court then resentenced defendant to a term that included the mandatory PRS period … .

… Defendant was not denied a meaningful opportunity, at resentencing, to seek to withdraw his plea based on the plea court’s failure to inform him that his sentence was required to include PRS. Generally, a defendant is entitled to an opportunity to withdraw a plea where a sentence exceeds the original promise. However, we find no support for defendant’s argument that this places a sua sponte obligation on the court to inform a counseled defendant of the right to move for plea withdrawal … . People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05297, First Dept 10-1-20

 

,

A NOTICE OF LIEN CAN NOT BE DISCHARGED ABSENT A TRIAL IF IT IS VALID ON ITS FACE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of lien should not have been discharged because it was valid on its face:

… Supreme Court … granted the motion of defendants … to reduce or discharge the mechanic’s lien filed by plaintiff … to the extent of reducing the lien from $33,837,618.34 to $3,566,357.42 … .

A court has no inherent power to vacate, modify or discharge a notice of lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) where there is no defect on the face of the lien, and any dispute concerning the lien’s validity must await a trial … . Pizzarotti, LLC v FPG Maiden Lane LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05305, First Dept 10-1-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address the plaintiff’s dental malpractice claim with respect to one tooth (tooth number 28). Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on that claim:

Even assuming, as defendant claims, that plaintiff would still have had to undergo future dental work had these six teeth been saved, and that any disfigurement was not fairly attributable to defendant because plaintiff opted to have another dentist install her dentures, these facts do not negate the primary injury claimed by plaintiff — the unnecessary loss of these teeth. It is immaterial that plaintiff’s expert did not indicate that he or she had reviewed plaintiff or her husband’s deposition testimony, as review of these documents was not necessary to make an informed determination about the appropriateness of treatment. * * *

However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted insofar as plaintiff’s claims are directed at tooth number 28, because plaintiff’s expert failed to raise an issue of fact regarding a departure of care with respect to this tooth. Castro v Yakobashvilli, 2020 NY Slip Op 05281, First Dept 10-1-20

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY AND VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated causes of action against police officers for assault, battery and violation of 42 USC 1983:

The allegations in the complaint, as amplified by the notice of claim, which must be liberally construed when determining a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion … sufficiently set forth a claim for assault and battery. Plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted and battered by police during his arrest and suffered injuries that required hospital treatment. Plaintiff specified the location of the assault and stated that defendants committed the assault and battery knowingly, that the arrest was without probable cause and that he was not ultimately charged with a crime. Moreover, in the notice of claim, plaintiff alleged that he was “grabbed, had his arms twisted and forcefully handcuffed,” that he was physically abused and that he did not resist arrest.

“To plead a cause of action to recover damages for assault, a plaintiff must allege intentional physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . “A valid claim for battery exists where a person intentionally touches another without that person’s consent” … .

… [A] party may allege assault and battery as the basis for a suit under 42 USC § 1983 … . Corcoran v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05133, First Dept 9-29-20

 

,

DEFENDANT LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL OUT OF A WINDOW; NO ALLEGATION OF THE VIOLATION OF ANY RULE, REGULATION, CODE OR STANDARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner was not liable for plaintiff’s fall out of a window to the sidewalk below:

The record demonstrates that defendants may not be held liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff when, upon tripping over speaker wires, he fell out of his bedroom window and onto the sidewalk below. Defendants met their burden for summary judgment by submitting evidence that the window, neither by its configuration or condition, presented a hazard in and of itself, and that defendants had no statutory or common-law duty to install window guards or stops for the benefit of adult plaintiff …

Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment as it was not based on any rules, regulations, codes, standards or on the factual record … . Fraser v Reclaim Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05135, First Dept 9-29-20

 

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S FALL GETTING OUT OF A POLICE CAR WAS NOT AN UNEXPECTED ACCIDENT OR DUE TO A RISK INHERENT IN THE JOB; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner police officer was not entitled to accidental disability retirement stemming from a fall. Petitioner was getting out of a police car in response to a family disturbance call when his firearm caught on the seatbelt causing him to fall to the ground:\

Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and annulling the board’s determination that petitioner’s injury did not arise from an unexpected accident or from a risk inherent in the job of being a police officer. The board correctly determined that petitioner’s injury was not caused by an accident as defined in the NYC Administrative Code and applicable case law.

“[N]ot every line-of-duty injury will support an award of accidental disability retirement . . . an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties . . . is not an accidental injury” … . Matter of Galluccio v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 05136, First Dept 9-29-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ENSURED DEFENDANT WAS KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVING THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE BEFORE ACCEPTING DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA; IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT HE WAS DRUNK AND DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea (attempted burglary), determined Supreme Court should have ensured that the defendant understood he was waiving the intoxication defense by pleading guilty. During the plea colloquy defendant indicated he was drunk and didn’t know what he was doing when he entered a woman’s hotel room:

Once defendant raised the possible defense of intoxication during the allocution, the court was obligated to determine if he understood the defense, whether he in fact, had a viable defense and whether he wanted to waive the same … .

Defendant’s statement that he entered the victim’s hotel room “looking for money from the lady” did not effectively recant his earlier statement as to intoxication and did not relieve the court of its duty to engage in an additional inquiry into defendant’s understanding of the intoxication defense or the facts of the offense … . People v Muniz-Cayetano, 2020 NY Slip Op 05156, First Dept 9-29-20

 

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