You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A STEP BROKE AS HE STEPPED ON IT; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SIGN THE STEP WAS DEFECTIVE; HOWEVER, THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON AN INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT A STAIRCASE BE “FREE OF DEFECTS,” PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action based upon a step which broke when plaintiff stepped on it should have been dismissed, but the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, based upon the same defective step, properly survived summary judgment:

Defendants, owner and construction manager, are entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims … . … [T]he testimony in the record, including plaintiff’s statements that he observed nothing wrong with the stairs when he ascended and descended several times on the day of his accident, demonstrates that there was no visible or apparent damage to the step that broke as he stepped on it … . Thus, any defect with the step was latent so that defendants could not have discovered it upon a reasonable inspection … . * * *

Supreme Court … properly denied summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, to the extent based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(f). Defendants fail to show that this provision, which “imposes a duty upon a defendant to provide a safe staircase, free of defects,” does not apply … . Instead, the evidence shows that the step was defective since it broke under plaintiff’s foot … . Solarte v Brearley Sch., 2025 NY Slip Op 02995, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was injured when a step broke under his weight. The Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action should have been dismissed because the defect in the step could not have been detected. However, the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, based on the same defective step, survived summary judgment because an Industrial Code provision requires that staircases be “free of defects”—an illustration of the stark difference between negligence-based liability and liability based on a regulatory violation.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN UNSECURED FENCE PANELS FELL ON HIM; HIS INJURIES ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injuries from fencing panels which fell over on him were covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Plaintiff was performing asbestos removal work on the roof of a residential building in NYCHA’s Mariners Harbor complex on Staten Island when the wind knocked over three unsecured panels of galvanized steel fencing onto plaintiff, causing his injuries. Each panel measured 8 feet in height and 8 to 10 feet in length. Together the panels had a combined weight of approximately 150 to 225 pounds.

… The fence had been partially dismantled and temporarily moved and stored in the area where plaintiff was working. Because of the reasonable possibility that they might topple onto the workspace, the panels required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … .

… [P]laintiff’s evidence demonstrated that the gravitational force generated by the wind-toppled steel fence panels was significant and a proximate cause of his injuries … . Plaintiff’s work involving asbestos removal fell within the protections of Labor Law § 240(1), as such work was part of a larger project to renovate multiple building rooftops at the Mariners Harbor complex … . Brito v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02869, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here unsecured fence panels toppled onto plaintiff in the workplace. The injuries were due to gravitational force and therefore covered by Labor Law 240(1).

 

A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WILL BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the cause of action for punitive damages, noted that “a separate cause of action for punitive damages is not legally cognizable…”. Domen Holding Co. v Sanders, 2025 NY Slip Op 02871, First Dept 5-13-25

 

 

 

 

, , ,

HOLDOVER RENT IN AN AMOUNT THREE TIMES EXISTING RENT CONSTITUTED APPROPRIATE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT A PENALTY; DEFENDANT, THE SELLER OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, REQUESTED POSSESSION FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the holdover rent, which was three times the existing rent, constituted appropriate liquidated damages, not a penalty. Plaintiffs are purchasers of defendant’s cooperative apartment:

Defendant seller, who requested continued possession of the apartment after closing for one month, complains that the holdover rent set in the liquidated damages provision of the post-closing possession agreement is grossly disproportionate because, over the course of 30 days, it amounted to three times the amount of rent set for the initial 30-day period of possession. However, “[w]hether a provision in an agreement is an enforceable liquidation of damages or an unenforceable penalty is a question of law, giving due consideration to the nature of the contract and the circumstances” … . The party “seeking to avoid liquidated damages” bears the burden “to show that the stated liquidated damages are, in fact, a penalty” … .

Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted. “[L]iquidated damages clauses that permit a landlord to recover between two or three times the amount of the existing rent or license fee in a holdover proceeding are not ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the probable loss and therefore, not a penalty” … . Moreover, defendant does not account for plaintiffs’ payment during the holdover period of the maintenance and assessment, in addition to the mortgage. The agreement further provides that defendant is responsible for plaintiffs’ costs of administering the agreement, among other things, which were unknown at the time the agreement was signed. Thus, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . Sang Min Kim v Bedouet, 2025 NY Slip Op 02875, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here holdover rent in an amount three times the existing rent was deemed appropriate liquidated damages, not a penalty.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF TEACHER FELL WHEN SHE LEANED ON A DEFECTIVE DESK; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROVE THAT THE DESK WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DESK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city school district was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case. Plaintiff, a teacher, alleged she fell when she leaned on a defective desk. The school district did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the defective desk because it did not present proof that the desk was inspected close in time to plaintiff’s fall:

Plaintiff, a teacher at a school in the Bronx, alleges that she fell when she leaned on a defective desk as she was grading papers in the back of a classroom. Defendants sustained their burden of establishing that they neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged defect by submitting the testimony of the school’s custodian engineer stating that there had been no prior complaints or injuries related to the desk, and that there was no repair record of any desk because the school discarded broken desks and chairs. Plaintiff also testified that she was not aware of the defective desk leg until after her accident, and that none of the students who used the desk ever reported any defect to her …. .

Nevertheless, defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as they did not sustain their burden of demonstrating that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition. Although defendants relied on a daily logbook recording the custodian engineer’s daily routine for the building, the logbook was not sufficient to show that defendants inspected the classrooms to ensure that they were free from defects … . Furthermore, the custodian engineer testified at his deposition that although he inspected the classrooms every morning, he did so only to make sure that the heat was on. This testimony is insufficient to demonstrate defendants’ lack of constructive notice, as it fails to show that the alleged condition did not exist when the area was last inspected before plaintiff fell … . Mamah v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2025 NY Slip Op 02877, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Another example of how problematic proof of a negative, i.e., proof of a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition, can be.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STEPMOTHER COULD NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK, WHICH WAS IN THE STEPMOTHER’S APARTMENT, BECAUSE THE POLICE KNEW THE BACKPACK BELONGED TO DEFENDANT; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM A LOWER COURT RULING ON A GROUND NOT RULED ON BY THE LOWER COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s motion to suppress a firearm seized from a backpack should have been granted. The police knew the backpack, which was in his stepmother’s apartment, belonged to the defendant. Therefore defendant’s stepmother could not consent to the search. That First Department noted that the arguments raised by the People for the first time on appeal (defendant had abandoned the backpack and the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied) could not be considered because the lower court did not rule on them (a prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction):

Supreme Court incorrectly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence recovered from defendant’s bag based on his stepmother’s consent to search her apartment … . The testimony at the hearing was explicit that the officer conducting the search knew that the bag belonged to defendant and not defendant’s stepmother before he picked it up and felt what he believed to be a firearm inside. Therefore, she did not “possess[] common authority over . . . [the] effects sought to be inspected”—here, defendant’s backpack—and could not consent to a search of it … .

While the People argue, in the alternative, that defendant was trespassing and abandoned the bag when he left it in the apartment to surrender himself to the police, they did not advance this argument before the suppression court, and they are foreclosed from doing so now … . The same is true of their argument that search of the bag was permissible under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement … . Furthermore, the hearing court did not rule on these issues in denying suppression, “and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point” … . Thus, this Court “lacks jurisdiction to affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress” the firearm on this alternative ground … . People v Gonzalez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02883, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s backpack was in defendant’s stepmother’s apartment. The police knew the backpack belonged to defendant. Therefore defendant’s stepmother could not consent to the search of the back pack.​

Practice Point: Here the People sought to affirm the lower court’s denial of the suppression motion on grounds which where not raised or ruled upon by the motion court. The appellate court does not have jurisdiction to affirm on a ground not ruled upon by the lower court.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TRANSLATED AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE; THE ROADWAY WHERE THE COLLISION OCCURRED WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE CLEARLY MARKED LANES; THEREFORE THE “UNSAFE LANE CHANGE” STATUTE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1128(A)) DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded to plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff submitted his affidavit which had been translated but did not submit an affidavit from the translator attesting to the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of plaintiff’s affidavit. In addition, the roadway where the accident occurred was not divided into two or more clearly marked lanes. Therefore the unsafe-lane-change provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law did not apply to the facts:

In support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted his translated affidavit and dashcam footage from defendants’ vehicle. He argued that defendant driver made an unsafe lane change in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), which provides that “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic . . . [a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate his entitlement to summary judgment. His affidavit, which was not accompanied by an affidavit from a translator attesting to the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the affidavit, does not comply with CPLR 2101(b) and is therefore inadmissible … . Even if the affidavit could be considered, the dashcam video does not “conclusively establish” that defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) or eliminate issues of fact as to how the accident occurred … .

The dashcam video shows that Zerega Avenue was not divided into lanes in the southbound direction, and that neither vehicle was driving within a “clearly marked” lane of traffic when plaintiff’s vehicle drove up on the right side of defendants’ tractor-trailer. Moreover, the dashcam footage does not establish that defendant driver caused the accident by moving into plaintiff’s lane of traffic when it was not safe to do so. Richards v Walls, 2025 NY Slip Op 02889, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Where an affidavit submitted to support a summary judgment motion has been translated, it is not admissible unless it is accompanied by the translator’s affidavit attesting the the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the translation.

Practice Point: The unsafe-lane-change statute, Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128(a), does not apply unless there are two or more clearly marked lanes of travel.

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL WERE NOT MET HERE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was not precluded by judicial estoppel from seeking attorney’s fees deemed uncollectible in a bankruptcy proceeding:

Supreme Court incorrectly dismissed the complaint on the ground that judicial estoppel bars plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees that were deemed uncollectible in a bankruptcy proceeding. Judicial estoppel applies where it is shown that a debtor omitted or concealed the existence of an asset and later brought suit to collect on that asset … . Here, the court made no such findings, and in fact assumed that plaintiff had not misled the bankruptcy trustee. Nor does the record establish that plaintiff obtained a benefit in the bankruptcy proceeding by taking one position in that proceeding and then assuming a contrary position in this action “simply because [his] interest changed” … . We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that the record establishes that plaintiff unequivocally adopted a conflicting legal position to obtain a bankruptcy discharge. Bohn v Tekulsky, 2025 NY Slip Op 02848, First Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: In the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a debtor from concealing the existence of an asset and subsequently bringing suit to collect on that asset. Although there was a dissent, the majority concluded plaintiff had not misled the bankruptcy court and therefore judicial estoppel did not apply.

 

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