You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THE DOCTRINE OF ‘TAX ESTOPPEL’ PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM TAKING A POSITION ON OWNERSHIP OF A CORPORATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS MADE IN CORPORATE TAX RETURNS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and clarifying a prior ruling. determined the doctrine of “tax estoppel” applied to preclude defendant Elayan from taking a position contrary to the factual statements in corporate tax returns re: an ownership interest in the corporation, Edgewater:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to apply the doctrine of “tax estoppel.” Under that doctrine, defendants’ acts in filing corporate tax returns for the years 2010 through 2014, signed by defendant Elayan, which contained factual statements that plaintiff Jaber had a 75% ownership interest in Edgewater during that time period, and precludes defendants from taking a position contrary to that in this litigation … . To the extent our decision in Matter of Bhanji v Baluch (99 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2012]) has been interpreted as making the doctrine generally inapplicable with respect to factual statements of ownership in tax returns, we clarify that the doctrine applies where, as here, the party seeking to contradict the factual statements as to ownership in the tax returns signed the tax returns, and has failed to assert any basis for not crediting the statements … . PH-105 Realty Corp v Elayaan, 2020 NY Slip Op 02971, First Dept 5-21-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was evidence plaintiff was told only to paint areas he could reach without the ladder. Plaintiff fell from the ladder:

Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder while painting an apartment in a building owned by defendant. The testimony of plaintiff’s employer, that he had specifically instructed plaintiff only to paint areas he could reach and not to use the ladder, raises triable issues as to whether plaintiff’s duties were expressly limited to work that did not expose him to an elevation-related hazard within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Orellana v Mo-Hak Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02867, First Dept 5-14-20

 

,

ARBITRATOR’S AWARD OF $63,000 UNDER THE LEMON LAW BASED UPON NOISES FROM THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration award in this Lemon Law case was not supported by adequate evidence. Respondent Leonidou leased a BMW and brought an action under the Lemon Law (General Obligations Law 198-a) alleging noises impaired the value of the vehicle. The arbitrator awarded Leonidou nearly $63,000:

The Lemon Law applies to defects in car parts and workmanship that are expressly warrantied from defect by the manufacturer/dealer (see General Business Law § 198-a[b][1]). Under the statute, when a manufacturer is unable to correct a defect or condition that “substantially impairs” the value of the motor vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer, at the option of the consumer, is required either to (1) replace the motor vehicle with a comparable motor vehicle or (2) accept return of the vehicle and refund the full purchase price to the consumer (General Business Law § 198-a[c][1]). It is undisputed that Leonidou was offered a replacement vehicle by BMW and the dealership in accordance with General Business Law § 198-a (c)(1). Leonidou exercised his option not to replace his vehicle.

Leonidou failed to present any evidence to show a defect in materials or workmanship that was covered by an express warranty … . Leonidou acknowledged that the noise issues did not affect the car’s safety or operation. He admitted that other drivers he knew, driving the same vehicle type, experienced similar noises, and BMW’s witnesses, who testified to their technical experience in repairing such vehicles, attested that the noises at issue were inherent in the SUV design due to its, inter alia, stiffer suspension for off-road conditions. There was no basis in this record to find that the noises otherwise substantially impaired the value of the vehicle to Leonidou … . Matter of BMW of N. Am., LLC v Leonidou, 2020 NY Slip Op 02858, First Dept 5-14-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE COLLISION CASE; THE TRUCK DRIVER BREACHED HIS DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case based upon the video taken from inside defendants’ truck (which collided with plaintiff):

The video footage taken from inside defendants’ truck shows plaintiff bicycling on the right side of the lane in front of Ortiz [the truck driver] before being struck … . Ortiz thus failed to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a]), and breached his duty “to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident”  … . Moreover, plaintiff was not required to demonstrate his own freedom from comparative negligence nor to show that defendants’ negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident to be entitled to summary judgment … . Fernandez v Ortiz, 2020 NY Slip Op 02856, Second Dept 5-14-20

 

LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was pushing a cart when the wheels got stuck. When a coworker kept pulling the cart plaintiff hand was pinned and the tip of his index finger was severed. Plaintiff alleged there were steel rods (which were integral to the work) and garbage on the floor:

A defendant will be found to have “failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused plaintiff’s injury, [if] they submitted no evidence of the cleaning schedule for the work site or when the site had last been inspected before the accident” … .

Here, plaintiff alleges that there was “garbage” as well as rods on the floor that impeded the cart’s movement. Bravo’s [the builder’s] contract explicitly required it to look for dangerous and hazardous conditions on a daily basis, and to keep the workplace safe. However, since Bravo submitted no evidence as to its inspection and cleaning schedule of the worksite, this claim must be reinstated.

It is not relevant whether the rods on which the cart got stuck were an open and obvious condition that plaintiff could have seen, since that issue raises a question of plaintiff’s comparative negligence and does not bear on defendant’s own liability … . Spencer v Term Fulton Realty Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02855, First Dept 5-14-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant presented sufficient evidence that defense counsel could have negotiated a plea which would not result in mandatory deportation:

Where the basis of a claim for ineffective counsel is counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate an immigration friendly plea, defendant has to show that there is a reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer … . If the likelihood that the People would have made such an offer is speculative, then the motion may be denied without a hearing … . Here, however, defendant’s motion shows that there was a reasonable possibility that his plea counsel could have secured a plea deal with less severe immigration consequences. …

Defendant has adequately alleged that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have offered defendant such a plea, despite the fact that the drug possession charge is a lesser-included offense to the drug sale charge. First, the People agreed to a sentence of one year in prison and one year of post-release supervision in order to cover defendant’s drug offenses. This suggests that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have agreed to a different, immigration-favorable disposition resulting in the same aggregate prison time … . …

Second, both offenses subject defendant to equally enhanced sentences if he were to be convicted of another felony within 10 years … . …

Third, if the People had only been willing to offer the lesser-included offense together with a longer sentence, defendant might well have been willing to agree to that. …

Finally, there is no evidence that the People specifically sought a conviction on the drug sales offense in order to secure a harsher immigration consequence for defendant … . …

‘… [D]efendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that he would have rejected his plea had he known that he could have obtained a sentence that had less harsh immigration consequences … . People v George, 2020 NY Slip Op 02852, First Dept 5-14-20

 

, , ,

THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy applied to a Creditor Trust. The Creditor Trust was formed pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for the insured, RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of unsecured creditors of the insured:

… [T]he Creditor Trust sued RCAP’s directors and officers alleging they had breached their fiduciary duties to the company. The directors and officers sought coverage under RCAP’s D & O liability policy with Westchester (the insurer). Westchester commenced this action in response, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no coverage obligations.

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception, to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 02895, First Dept 5-14-20

 

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT VOTED IN CONNECTICUT WHILE IN COLLEGE THERE, NEW YORK REMAINED HIS ELECTORAL RESIDENCY; THEREFORE RESPONDENT WAS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR STATE SENATE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined New York, not Connecticut, was respondent’s (Koffman’s) electoral residency. Therefore respondent was eligible to run for the State Senate in New York. Respondent had attended college in Connecticut and registered to vote a there during college:

Petitioner submitted proof that respondent had registered to vote and had voted in Connecticut from 2015 to 2018 instead of voting by absentee ballot in New York. In opposition to the summary judgment motion, respondent presented his affidavit and documentary evidence which demonstrated, among other things, that he was born and raised in New York; that he used his New York home as his permanent address; maintained his New York driver’s license; paid New York taxes; completed New York jury service while he was a student at Yale; lived in New York when school was not in session; returned to New York to live and work after graduation, and always considered himself a New York resident. * * *

Under the circumstances here, where there was ample proof that Koffman was a New York resident and that Koffman’s presence in Connecticut as a college student was temporary, together with the fact that he was not required under Connecticut law to renounce any voter registration in another state … , petitioner fell short of meeting his burden by clear and convincing evidence that respondent does not meet the residency requirement of the NY Constitution. Matter of Quart v Kaufman. 2020 NY Slip Op 02904, First Dept 5-14-20

 

BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN NEW YORK CITY, WAS NOT A FATAL DEFECT (DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, disagreeing with the Second Department, determined that, given the unique Covid-19-related circumstances in New York City, the belated filing of designating-petition cover sheets was not a fatal defect:

This election law proceeding involves the belated filing of cover sheets where the delay in filing is attributable to illness or quarantine because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. We hold that under the unique circumstances existing in New York City during the past few months, and the specific health challenges alleged here, the belated filing of these specific documents is not a fatal defect. In so holding, we note that no challenge has been presented to the number of signatures in the designating petitions and no claim of fraud has been alleged. Indeed, there is no evidence of specific actual prejudice presented. Although respondent Board of Elections contends that a cover sheet is necessary for administrative convenience, that cannot outweigh the right to ballot access in the current unique circumstances. Matter of Mejia v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02902, First Dept 5-14-20

Similar issue and result in Matter of Mujumder v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02903, First Dept 5-14-20

 

APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant’s pro se application for remission of the forfeited bail should have been granted. Appellant put up her own money for the bail. In support of her application for remission of the bail she submitted her own affidavit, defendant’s affidavit and a letter from a psychiatrist who had treated the defendant. Supreme Court refused to consider the affidavits and letter which explained defendant had become depressed upon the death of his younger brother, began abusing drugs and went off his mental health medication, resulting in his missing his court date. Instead Supreme Court relied on the court’s form application for remission of bail which was submitted by the appellant. The form application did not have any space for an explanation of the reasons for defendant’s missing his court date:

A court may forfeit a bail bond “[i]f, without sufficient excuse, a principal does not appear when required or does not render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the criminal court wherein bail has been posted” (CPL 540.10[1]). When this occurs, the surety may make an application for remission of the forfeited bail, which the court may grant “upon such terms as are just” (CPL 540.30[2]). “[S]uch an application should be granted only under exceptional circumstances and to promote the ends of justice. In making the application, a defendant or surety has the burden of proving that the defendant’s failure to appear was not deliberate and willful, and that the failure did not prejudice the People or deprive them of any rights” … . We find that appellant met all of these requirements. People v Nichols, 2020 NY Slip Op 02741, First Dept 5-7-20

 

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