You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S NON-LEGAL MAIL DID NOT REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A MISTRIAL; THE PROSECUTOR’S DEMONSTRATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON (A KNIFE) DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL; AND THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE JURY NOTE REQUESTING THE EXAMINATION OF THE KNIFE WAS NOT AN O’RAMA VIOLATION AND DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction after addressing several unusual issues in depth: (1) The prosecutor obtained a ex parte order allowing the opening and reading of defendant’s non-legal mail to determine whether defendant was threatening an eyewitness. After reading two batches of mail, the prosecutor determined no threats were being made, informed defense counsel of the order and turned the mail over to defense counsel. The First Department determined there were no related grounds for disqualifying the prosecutor or for granting a mistrial. (2) When the defendant was on the stand he denied knowing the knife (murder weapon) could be flipped open with one hand. During her questioning the prosecutor demonstrated that the knife could be flipped open. The Second Department determined the “prosecutor-as-an-unsworn witness” argument did not warrant a mistrial, in part because of the curative instructions to the jury. (3) The knife was brought into the jury room after a request from the jury about which the court and the attorneys were not made aware. The judge and the attorneys had agreed that the jury’s examination of the knife would be allowed and the examination was done according to the agreed procedure. This was not an O’Rama violation because it involved only the examination of a physical object, not an instruction or the substance of any trial evidence. Therefore a mistrial on this ground was not warranted. People v Jenkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 04014, First Dept 7-16-20

 

, ,

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 review must be confined to the ground asserted in the agency’s initial FOIL decision and could not consider the grounds asserted in the agency’s subsequent decision issued after petitioner brought the Article 78 proceeding. The ground for the initial decision had been abandoned in the second decision. The court noted that the petitioner’s demand for the metadata of the disclosed documents must be denied because metadata was not “reasonably described” in the FOIL request:

This proceeding is not in the nature of mandamus to compel. Instead, the standard of review is whether the denial of the FOIL request was “affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3] … ), for which judicial review is “limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” in its determination … . Since respondents abandoned the exemption raised in their initial decision, they cannot meet their burden to “establish[] that the . . . documents qualif[y] for the exemption” … . Further, as respondents “did not make any contemporaneous claim that the requested materials” fit the newly raised exemptions, “to allow [them] to do so now would be contrary to [Court of Appeals] precedent, as well as to the spirit and purpose of FOIL” … . …

An agency is only required to produce “a record reasonably described” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the FOIL request for “complete copies” of communications and documents cannot fairly be read to have implicitly requested metadata associated with those copies. Matter of Barry v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 04007, First Dept 7-16-20

 

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED TO TIME-SERVED BASED UPON HIS HEALTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reduced defendant’s sentence for assault second, aggravated harassment and criminal possession of a weapon based upon defendant’s health:

The trial evidence established that the defendant engaged in a 10-month campaign of harassment, wherein he terrorized the attorneys and two female staff at the law firm representing his wife in divorce proceedings. The defendant called the firm more than 1,500 times during that period, and engaged in vile communication which became progressively more sexual, racist and threatening in nature. The evidence likewise supports the conclusion that defendant caused physical injury to his wife’s matrimonial lawyer when defendant hit the victim in the shin with his four-pronged cane during a court proceeding. * * *

While we otherwise find no basis to disturb defendant’s sentence and do not consider him deserving of this court’s leniency, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction. In so doing, we extend to him the compassion and consideration he neglected to show the four women simply doing their jobs, and reduce his sentence to time served because of defendant’s age and chronic health conditions (including coronary artery disease, hypertension and diabetes), and the fact that he has only a few months to serve before his release date. People v Spinac, 2020 NY Slip Op 04002, First Dept 7-16-20

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Stop 1’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The decision does not describe the facts but apparently rainfall had something to do with the fall:

Defendant (Stop 1) did not meet its initial burden of demonstrating “that it neither created a hazardous condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … , as it made no specific, affirmative showing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as they “failed to offer specific evidence as to their activities on the day of the accident, including evidence indicating the last time [the area in question] was inspected, cleaned, or maintained before [the] fall” … . Witness Nashwen Nagi testified that he was not in the bodega at the time of plaintiff’s accident because he was on vacation, and did not have any knowledge of the accident until Stop 1 received a letter from plaintiff’s lawyer. According to Nagi, Stop 1 did not maintain employment or repair records for the bodega.

The record in any event raises triable issues of fact sufficient for trial, as the affidavit from a nonparty witness presents an issue as to how long before the accident the rain had started. Ruiz v Stop 1 Gourmet Deli, 2020 NY Slip Op 04000, First Dept 7-16-20

 

, , ,

WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING LOT AFFECTED THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PROOF ON THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; DEFENDANTS’ ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY; THE $12 MILLION VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a new trial was necessary on both liability and damages in this traffic accident case. Supreme Court had found the $12,000,000 verdict excessive and had ordered a new damages trial. The accident occurred in a parking lot at LaGuardia Airport during a snowfall and involved a salt-spreading truck. Proof whether the parking was public or private should have been allowed because the reckless disregard standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law) would apply if the parking lot was public. The First Department further found that the defendants’ accident reconstructionist should have been allowed to testify:

Plaintiff, an employee at a Dunkin Donuts franchise in LaGuardia Airport, was involved in an accident with a salt spreading truck operating in parking lot 10 of the airport during a snowfall. The trial court erred in truncating proof on the issue of whether lot 10 was public or private. This error then directly impacted whether the jury should have been charged with the recklessness standard as set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 … . The error in the charge warrants a new trial … .

The court also erred in precluding defendants’ accident reconstructionist from testifying … . The court’s in limine inquiry of the expert concerning scientific studies was not relevant, as the subject of the testimony, accident reconstruction and perception reaction time are not novel scientific theories, such as to require a Frye hearing … . The proposed expert testimony was based on evidence in the record concerning the accident, and was not entirely speculative … . Similarly, defendants’ notice of expert exchange was not insufficient such as to warrant his in toto preclusion. The remedy for any alleged failures in specificity could have been handled by limiting his testimony to the subject matters listed in the exchange (CPLR 3101[d]). Cabrera v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 03993, First Dept 7-16-20

 

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MOVE TO DISQUALIFY LAW FIRMS WHICH NEVER REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to move to disqualify two law firms (SZA and ABZ), one of which represented defendant, on conflict of interest grounds in this foreclosure/property-ownership dispute because neither law firm ever represented plaintiff. Apparently there was some overlap of personnel in the two law firms:

The basis for a disqualification motion is the alleged breach of the fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to a current or former client … . When the law firm targeted by the disqualification motion has never represented the moving party, that firm owes no duty to that party. “[I]t follows that if there is no duty owed there can be no duty breached” … . Since plaintiff never had an attorney-client relationship with either SZA or ABZ, plaintiff had no standing to bring a motion to disqualify … .

To be sure, a court has the authority to act sua sponte to disqualify counsel if it finds a conflict of interest warranting disqualification … . However, the record before us does not support disqualification. The two defendants present a united front to plaintiff at this juncture. Their answers raise virtually the same affirmative defenses and counterclaims to the complaint, and the defenses and counterclaims of one defendant do not undermine the position of the other … . If defendants’ interests do come to diverge in this litigation then counsel of course has a duty to ensure compliance with rule 1.7 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Santos, 2020 NY Slip Op 03976, First Dept 7-16-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle would impose an excessive hardship and would constitute an constitutionally impermissible excessive fine. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a weapon which was found in his vehicle:

Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant, the registered and titled owner of the vehicle, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, used the vehicle as a means of committing the crime of criminal possession of a firearm … .

In opposition, defendant, acting pro se, submitted an affidavit and supporting evidence in support of his argument that forfeiture of the vehicle, which he needed for getting to work with his tools and picking up his children from school, would impose an excessive and tremendous hardship on him and his family, particularly given that this is his sole criminal offense, and in light of other mitigating facts. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether, under all the factual circumstances, civil forfeiture of the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore a constitutionally impermissible excessive fine … . Property Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dept. v Nurse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03866, First Dept 7-9-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF A SIDEWALK UTILITIES GRATE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about whether: (1) a sidewalk grate belonged to the abutting landowner (11 Madison) or the utility (Con Ed); and (2) whether the installation of the grate by the prior owner of the property constituted a special use of the sidewalk:

The record does not demonstrate conclusively that the owner of the sidewalk vault grate on which plaintiff Marie Saez allegedly tripped was defendant Con Ed, rather than the 11 Madison defendants, who owned the property abutting the sidewalk where the grate was located. There is an affidavit by the president of defendant Sapir Realty Management Corp. averring that the grates were already installed when the 11 Madison defendants acquired the property in 2003 and that the 11 Madison defendants had never been advised by Con Ed that they had any responsibility for maintaining the grates over Con Ed’s utility vaults or presented with any plans concerning the grates. There is also evidence that the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor in interest had purchased and installed the non-standard vault gratings, and there is a note on the plot plan for the vault construction stating that this entity was to “supply, install and maintain” the non-standard gratings it had requested. As issues of fact exist whether Con Ed or the 11 Madison defendants owned the gratings, it cannot be concluded that Con Ed was responsible for maintaining the gratings and the area around them in safe condition … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor’s installation of the non-standard vault grates constitutes a special use of the sidewalk by these defendants. Although there is evidence that they had no access to the grates and the vault, the evidence is not conclusive. Moreover, there is evidence that the transformers in the vaults provided electrical service solely to their property … . Saez v Sapir Realty Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03863, First Dept 7-9-20

 

,

POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND PURSUIT; THEREFORE THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police who stopped and pursued the defendant did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the outset. So the weapon discarded by the defendant should have been suppressed:

“Police pursuit is regarded as significantly impeding a person’s freedom of movement, thus requiring justification by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . By contrast, “mere surveillance need not be justified by reasonable suspicion” … .

Although the police actions began as permissible observation, while following defendant slowly in their car without turning on their lights or sirens … , observation gave way to pursuit when the officers turned on their lights and sirens to cross the street against traffic and pull up ahead of defendant. Even crediting one of the officer’s testimony that his intent was to get a better view and alert oncoming traffic, not to cut off, block, or alarm defendant, the objective impact of this maneuver was “intimidating” and communicated “an attempt to capture or . . . intrude upon [defendant’s] freedom of movement” … .

Because it is undisputed that the circumstances before this police activity were not sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, it was unlawful and could not be validated by any subsequently acquired suspicion … . When defendant discarded a handgun during the course of the illegal pursuit, he did not voluntarily abandon it and it should have been suppressed … . People v Collins, 2020 NY Slip Op 03852, First Dept 7-9-20

 

, , ,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SERVED VALID SUBPOENAS ON THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 352 (MARTIN ACT) IN A FRAUD INVESTIGATION; ONCE THE MOTIONS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE EX PARTE ORDER RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS WAS DETERMINED, THE COURT NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION; THEREFORE THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES’ SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE SUPREME COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined that the Attorney General (petitioner) properly served subpoenas on the virtual currency companies (respondents) pursuant to General Business Law (GBL) 352 (Martin Act) in a fraud investigation. The subpoenas were attacked on several grounds, all of which were rejected: (1) subject matter jurisdiction (arguing the virtual currency is not a commodity or a security): (2) long-arm jurisdiction (arguing insufficient contacts with New York); (3) ex parte order was not certified as required by GBL 352 (court found this a technical not jurisdictional defect). But before addressing the issues raised on appeal, the Second Department held that the court did not have statutory authority under the GBL to address the respondents’ motion to dismiss (which was the basis of the appeal). Under the GBL, once the motions to vacate or modify the subpoenas were determined, the court has no authority over the Attorney General’s investigation:

… [U]nder the Martin Act’s statutory scheme, once Supreme Court has issued an order responding to a GBL 354 application, it has no further role in the Attorney General’s investigation, except to rule on a motion by either party to vacate or modify the order, as respondents made here. Accordingly, once the court issued the order authorized by GBL 354 on April 24, 2019, and modified it by order dated May 16, 2019, the proceeding before it was concluded and there was no action or proceeding for Supreme Court to “dismiss” on May 21, 2019 when respondents filed their motion that resulted in the order now before the court. All that remained was the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation, in which, by statute, the courts have no further role at this stage. Indeed, neither party cites to, and this Court is unaware of, any prior case in which the subject of a Martin Act investigation has moved to “dismiss” an application by the Attorney General for an order pursuant to GBL 354. Matter of James v iFinex Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03880, First Dept 7-9-20

 

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