You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

“AT ISSUE” WAIVER OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE EXPLAINED; AS LONG AS THE PRIVILEGED MATERIAL IS NOT USED AS PROOF, IT IS NOT “AT ISSUE.” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney-client privilege was not waived by the appellants’ affirmative defense because the privileged material will not be used to prove the defense. The facts are not described but the lawsuit concerns the purchase of a building and the rent and regulatory status of plaintiffs’ apartments:

An “at issue” waiver of privilege occurs where a party affirmatively places the subject matter of its own privileged communication at issue in the litigation so that invasion of the privilege is required to determine the validity of a claim or defense of the party asserting the privilege and application of the privilege would deprive the adversary of vital information. However, the fact that a privileged communication contains information relevant to the issues the parties are litigating does not, without more, place the contents of the privileged communication “at issue” in the lawsuit … . An “at issue” waiver occurs when a party has asserted a claim or defense that it intends to prove by the use of the privileged material … .

Here, appellants represent that they will not use the due diligence report to prove their claim of lack of willfulness and/or knowledge of the rent regulatory status of plaintiffs’ apartments. In this situation, appellants’ willfulness is presumed; and plaintiffs and seller defendants have adequate other sources of evidence to demonstrate whether or not appellants’ affirmative defense and cross claims have merit. Alekna v 207-217 W. 110 Portfolio Owner LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06841, First Dept 11-19-20

 

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant club (Sin City) and security company (Emissary) were not entitled to summary judgment in this third-party assault case. The facts are not described, but apparently plaintiffs were assaulted on the street in front of the club. There was a question of fact whether Sin City was a special employer and therefore vicariously liable for the actions of Emissary’s bouncers. The court noted, with respect to the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101) cause of action, the defendants did not demonstrate the assailants were not served alcohol while visibly intoxicated and did not demonstrate the sale of alcohol to the assailants had no connection to the assault:

Issues of fact remain as to defendants’ control of the street in front of the club, where plaintiffs’ assault occurred … ; whether defendants could or should have foreseen plaintiffs’ assault, given not only the events that transpired in the club prior to the assault … , but also the acts of violent or criminal conduct at the club predating plaintiffs’ assault … and, whether Sin City was the special employer, and is therefore vicariously liable for the acts and omissions, of Emissary’s bouncers, who provided security for Sin City on the night in question and allegedly assaulted the plaintiffs … . Ballard v Sin City Entertainment Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06842, First Dept 11-19-20

 

, , , ,

IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN UNINCORPORATED CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, NEITHER THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (RPL) NOR THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW (BCL) APPLIES TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT’S DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEFENDING THE ACTION; THE BY-LAWS AND THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court, in a matter of first impression, determined the defendant, the former president of the condominium board, is not entitled to indemnification (attorney’s fees) for her costs in defending a lawsuit brought by the board of managers of the unincorporated condominium association. The lawsuit alleged defendant misappropriated the insurance proceeds paid after a fire in the condominium building. The First Department held the by-laws and the common law rule that the parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees control. The court rejected the application of provisions of the Real Property Law (RPL) and the Business Corporation Law (BCL) with respect to indemnification in the context of an unincorporated condominium association:

Neither the common law, nor BCL § 624(e) by analogy, provide the right to recoup attorney’s fees to a board member successfully defending against a derivative action. BCL § 626(e) is not an indemnification provision. Rather, it permits legal fees to be paid to an owner who successfully asserts the interest of an entity “when the management of the entity fails to act to protect that interest” … . Consequently, “an award of attorneys’ fees in a shareholders’ derivative suit is to reimburse the plaintiff for expenses incurred on the corporation’s behalf” … . The corporation is responsible for paying the legal fees, but only where the corporation benefits from the litigation … . Neither the BCL nor the common law provide a board member with a reciprocal right to recover legal fees for defending against an unsuccessful derivative action, at least not in the absence of such authorization in the bylaws or some other statutory authority. In this respect, …

In the absence of any authority permitting [defendant] to recoup her legal fees, the general common law rule applies, that “attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule” … . [Defendant], alone, is responsible for her legal fees. Board of Mgrs. of the 28 Cliff St. Condominium v Maguire, 2020 NY Slip Op 06844, First Dept 11-19-20

 

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against the security company, Beacon, and the EMT provider, Transcare, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff passed out in his seat at a concert and defendants responded. The medical technician found that plaintiff was fully conscious and alert. Because the music was so loud the medical technician asked plaintiff to go to the back of the theater to check his blood pressure and pulse. Plaintiff was offered assistance in walking but he refused. He passed out again and fell with his face hitting the floor:

Any duty Beacon or Transcare owed to plaintiff to assist him in exiting the theater terminated when he refused such assistance. It is well settled that a competent adult has the right to determine the course of his or her own medical treatment, including declining treatment … . Plaintiff does not dispute that he refused assistance in standing or ambulating. Further, the testimony was that the EMT technician assessed plaintiff as alert and oriented as he left his seat to exit the theater. Given this, the complaint should have been dismissed in its entirety as to defendants Beacon and Transcare … . Fornabaio v Beacon Broadway Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06853, First Dept 11-19-20

 

A HEAVY STONE SLAB SLIPPED OUT OF A SLING AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED AND FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW THE EQUIPMENT WAS DEFECTIVE AND DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW HE AND A CO-WORKER WERE NOT NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim in this falling object case should have been granted. A heavy stone slab which was being hoisted slipped out of a sling and fell on plaintiff. Plaintiff did not have to show the equipment was defective and did not have to show freedom from comparative fault:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes on owners, general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices to protect against elevation-related hazards inherent in construction, and they will be absolutely liable for any violation that proximately causes injury regardless whether they supervised or controlled the work … . The statute is violated when an object that is improperly hoisted or inadequately secured falls … .

Because the sling proved inadequate to secure the slab against falling, the statute was violated … . Defendants’ contention that because the hoist and slings had sufficient load capacity to hoist the slab and were not broken or defective, plaintiff was required to demonstrate how the slab became unsecured, is unavailing. Either the sling itself or the manner in which it was used to secure the slab was inadequate and failed to provide proper protection, and plaintiff was not required to demonstrate how or why it failed to support the slab … .

Any failure by plaintiff to properly secure the slab with the straps would at most be comparative negligence which is not a defense to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Furthermore, any failure by his coworker to properly secure the slab with the straps was not so extraordinary or removed from defendants’ duty to provide an adequate safety device so as to constitute a superseding, intervening event breaking the chain of causation … . Gallegos v Bridge Land Vestry, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06854, First Dept 11-19-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the insurance broker, T & H, stated a cause of action in negligence based on T & H’s failure to notify the excess carrier of its potential exposure to a claim:

Under ordinary circumstances, it is understood that “insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so” … . Nevertheless, if an insured asks the broker to take on additional responsibilities above and beyond procuring specifically requested coverage, and the broker agrees to do so, a duty is created that the broker must execute with reasonable care … . Thus, we have held that a duty was imposed on a broker to notify the appropriate primary and excess carriers of a potential claim where there was “evidence that as a matter of routine [the insured] referred all questions regarding its insurance claims to [the broker] and [the broker] handled all [the insured]’s insurance needs, including referring its claims to insurers” … . Here, plaintiff alleged that it and T&H had established a course of conduct whereby plaintiff would notify the latter of claims against it and T&H would inform the carriers, and that T&H acknowledged that plaintiff relied on it to carry out this function. Indeed, plaintiff alleges, in this case T&H affirmatively represented that it had placed both the primary and the excess carrier on notice. Accordingly, plaintiff has stated a cause of action for negligence predicated on T&H’s alleged failure to advise the excess carrier of its potential exposure. Martin Assoc., Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06860, First Dept 11-19-20

 

, , ,

A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (ASPD); REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION TO THAT EFFECT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT ADJUDICATING HIM A SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CIVIL MANAGEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury in this Mental Hygiene Law sex-offender civil-commitment trial should have been instructed that the anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) diagnosis cannot, standing alone, support a finding defendant has a mental abnormality as defined in the Mental Hygiene Law. The fact that the Pattern Jury Instructions do not include an instruction on this issue is not a justification for failing to give the instruction:

Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 defines “Mental abnormality” as a “congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.” In Matter of State of New York v Donald DD (24 NY3d 174 [2014]), the Court of Appeals expressly held: “evidence that a respondent suffers from antisocial personality disorder cannot be used to support a finding that he has a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), when it is not accompanied by any other diagnosis of mental abnormality” … . …

Where [as here] the jury is asked to parse through multiple psychological diagnoses, which include ASPD, the jury should be instructed that ASPD cannot be the sole basis for its finding that someone suffers from a mental abnormality. This is to ensure that the jury’s finding conforms to the applicable law. Absent such an instruction, the jury may mistakenly find mental abnormality based solely on ASPD without the requisite finding of an additional diagnosis of a condition or disorder that, combined with ASPD, may predispose one to commit a sex offense. Matter of State of New York v David S., 2020 NY Slip Op 06876, First Dept 11-19-20

 

EVIDENCE THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER PLAINTIFF WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when his ladder slipped out from under him. Plaintiff did not have to show the ladder was defective:

Plaintiff’s testimony that the unsecured ladder slipped out from under him established prima facie his entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim …, and defendants failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Their contention that an issue of fact exists as to whether the ladder was appropriate to perform the work is unavailing. Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective … . Cabrera v 65 Park W. Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06702, First Dept 11-17-20

 

,

DEFENDANT TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PIPE STICKING OUT OF THE FLOOR AND FELL INTO THE UNGUARDED ELEVATOR MECHANISM; THE DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (19 Realty’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted on the ground that the piece of pipe sticking out of the floor, over which plaintiff tripped, was a trivial defect. The pipe stub was near unguarded elevator mechanisms in the elevator room of an apartment building. Plaintiff fell into the mechanism and the injuries to his hand required amputation. The court noted that the size of a defect is not the proper criteria for determining whether a defect is trivial, and further noted the defendant had notice of the defect because it had been there since 2007:

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . “A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . Moreover, “there is no minimal dimension test or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable,” and therefore “granting summary judgment to a defendant based exclusively on the dimension[s] of the . . . defect is unacceptable” … . The cases recognize that “a holding of triviality [must] be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone” … .

Here, 19 Realty failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that the pipe stub defect was trivial and nonactionable, given that the surrounding circumstances included the unguarded and exposed hoist and moving cables of the elevator cars, which magnified the risk the pipe stub posed and rendered the raised pipe stub more dangerous than it might otherwise have been. Moreover, both 19 Realty and the court below improperly relied almost exclusively on the size of the pipe stub, which the Court of Appeals has held is not the proper analysis (see Hutchinson, 26 NY3d at 77) … . Arpa v 245 E. 19 Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06444, First Dept 11-12-20

 

,

THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE PROTECTED THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY FROM LIABILITY IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE; THE DRIVER TESTIFIED HE BRAKED SLIGHTLY WHEN A CAR WAS IN FRONT OF THE BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming Supreme Court. but on different grounds, determined the New York City Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) motion for summary judgment in this bus-passenger injury case. Plaintiff alleged he fell when the bus stopped in an unusual and violent manner. The First Department applied the emergency doctrine to affirm summary judgment in favor of the NYCTA. The bus driver testified he slightly touched the brake when a car was in front of the bus making a right turn:

The emergency doctrine recognizes that when an actor is faced with a sudden, unexpected circumstance leaving little or no time for deliberation, “the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . Under the doctrine, a person faced with an emergency “cannot reasonably be held to the same accuracy of judgment or conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect, even though it later appears that the actor made the wrong decision” … . Further, “[w]hile it is often a jury question whether a person’s reaction to an emergency was reasonable, summary resolution is possible when the individual presents sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of his or her actions and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate issue of fact on the issue” … . …

… [P]laintiff failed to submit any evidence tending to show that Williams [the bus driver] created the emergency or could have avoided plaintiff’s fall by other means than slightly stepping on the brake … . Castillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 06447, First Dept 11-12-20

 

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