You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

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

 

, ,

TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BUS DRIVER REACTED APPROPRIATELY TO A CAR SUDDENLY PULLING OUT IN FRONT OF THE BUS TO MAKE A U-TURN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant transit authority’s motion for summary judgment in this bus-passenger injury case should have been granted. The driver of a double-parked car pulled out in front of the bus to make a u-turn and the driver properly slammed on the brakes:

… [D]efendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that their bus driver was presented with an emergency situation that was not of his own making when a vehicle that was double-parked on the right side of the roadway suddenly made a U-turn in front of him, and that he took reasonable and prudent action to avoid a collision … . They also met their initial burden of showing that their bus driver’s actions before the accident did not cause or contribute to the emergency, because the bus driver testified at his deposition that he was traveling no more than 15 miles per hour, warned the double-parked car before he attempted to pass by sounding his horn, and had his foot hovering over the brakes when the sedan suddenly made a U-turn in front of his bus when it was approximately five feet away. What is more, the driver had no duty to anticipate that another driver would make a sudden, illegal maneuver … .

… [T]he record shows that the driver was obliged to take immediate action when the car suddenly cut in front of the bus to make a U-turn, and stepping on the brakes to avoid a collision was a reasonable response to a situation not of defendants’ own making … . Santana-Lizardo v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 05164, First Dept 9-29-20

 

RESPONDENT CANDIDATE FOR THE NYS ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE MAINTAINED A RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK FOR FIVE YEARS; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO INVALIDATE RESPONDENT’S CANDIDACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent, a candidate for the NYS Assembly, did not establish he maintained a residence in New York for five years. Therefore the petitioners’ application to invalidate respondent’s candidacy should have been granted:

Petitioners brought this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to declare invalid the designating petitions naming respondent. Petitioners alleged that, because respondent lived continuously in Illinois from 2009 until 2016, he failed to satisfy the New York residency requirements of article III (§ 7) of the State Constitution. Section 7 provides: “No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she . . . has been a resident of the state of New York for five years” … . …

Petitioner presented evidence that, in April 2009, respondent left Germany and briefly relocated to Albany, New York, the home of his father and aunt. He visited there for approximately four months until August 2009, at which time he moved to Chicago, Illinois. Respondent took up residence … [in] Chicago, Illinois, from which he: obtained an Illinois driver’s license; registered to vote in the State of Illinois; enrolled in a graduate school program; obtained employment; paid Illinois state and Federal income taxes using the Chicago residence address; and obtained a cell phone with a Chicago area code.

We note that respondent’s having voted in Illinois during the five year period preceding the upcoming election is inconsistent with his claim to have maintained New York as his residence throughout that five year period … . While we have held that being registered to vote in another state, standing alone, is not necessarily dispositive … , in this case, respondent’s time in Illinois … does not support his argument that he “always intended to return” to New York as required by Election Law § 1-104 (22). Matter of Patch v Bobilin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05172, First Dept 9-29-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PERMANENTLY AFFIXED LADDER VIBRATED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; NO SHOWING PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE HE SHOULD WEAR A HARNESS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged a permanently affixed ladder in an elevator shaft vibrated causing him to fall to the floor of the shaft:

… [W]hile an unsecured ladder that moves or shifts constitutes a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … , the ladder from which plaintiff fell was secured to the structure, and, other than allegedly vibrating, it did not move, shift or sway. Under the circumstances, an issue of fact exists whether the secured, permanently affixed ladder that allegedly vibrated provided proper protection for plaintiff.

The record demonstrates, contrary to defendants’ contention, that at the time of his accident plaintiff was performing not routine maintenance but repair work, which falls within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) … . The work in which plaintiff was engaged occurred over the course of weeks, if not longer, and its purpose was to correct the unguarded condition of traveling cables that caused the cables to strike other objects within the elevator shafts … . …

Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, as they submitted no evidence that plaintiff knew that he was supposed to use a harness for climbing ladders or that he disregarded “specific instructions” to do so . Further, to the extent the ladder failed to provide proper protection, plaintiff’s failure to use a harness amounts at most to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Kehoe v 61 Broadway Owner LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04900, First Dept 9-3-20

 

, ,

LOCAL RESIDENTS OPPOSING THE USE OF A HOTEL AS A HOMELESS SHELTER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CONFIGURATION OF THE BUILDING WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE ACCESS BY FIREFIGHTERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over a concurring opinion by Justice Oing, determined that the old Park Savoy Hotel was properly classified as a nontransient apartment hotel for use as a shelter for 150 employed or job-seeking men. However local residents, who brought an Article 78 proceeding objecting to the shelter, raised a question of fact about whether the configuration of the building would allow adequate access by firefighters:

We are asked to decide whether respondents properly permitted the opening of an employment shelter for homeless men in midtown Manhattan. We find that respondents rationally determined that the subject building is a Class A multiple dwelling in the “R-2” occupancy group which represents a continuation of a preexisting use group classification and is grandfathered from compliance with the current New York City Building Code (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. [Building Code] § 310.1). However, we conclude that petitioners have rebutted the presumption that the building as currently configured will not endanger the general safety and welfare of the public. Accordingly, we remand this matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings. Matter of West 58th St. Coalition, Inc. v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04521, First Dept 8-13-20

 

,

QUESTION WHETHER A CONTRACT WHICH IS SILENT ABOUT ITS DURATION WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND COULD NOT BE RESOLVED BASED UPON THE PLEADINGS ALONE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Goldman Sachs’) motion to dismiss the complaint in this breach of contract action should not have been granted. The issue is whether a contract with is silent about its duration was properly terminated by Goldman. The issue requires consideration of the intent of the parties and could not be resolved based upon the pleadings:

… Supreme Court failed to examine the surrounding circumstances as well as the intent of the parties in discerning the original intent of the parties …. It improperly determined, as a matter of law, that a “reasonable time” justifying termination of the contract had elapsed and plaintiffs had not made any persuasive arguments to the contrary. In doing so, it relied upon its conclusion that Goldman was no longer receiving a meaningful benefit from the agreement, thus rejecting out of hand plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint to the contrary.

As this is a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), Supreme Court should have afforded the pleadings a liberal construction (see CPLR 3026), taken the allegations of the complaint as true, and afforded plaintiff[s] the benefit of every possible favorable inference. A motion court must only determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations should not be considered in determining a motion to dismiss … . “Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . Charles Schwab Corp. v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04520, First Dept 8-13-20

 

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