You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

THE COURT WAS TROUBLED BY NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIAL AND HEARINGS’ (OATH’S) REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER PAY THE ORDERED RESTITUTION OF OVER $234,000 BEFORE PETITIONER COULD APPEAL THE DETERMINATION; THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DECIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted it was troubled by the New York City Office of Administrative Trial and Hearings’ (OATH’S) requirement that petitioner pay the ordered restitution as a prerequisite to appealing the determination. The issue was not raised by the parties so the First Department could not decide it:

Although neither specifically preserved nor raised on appeal, we are troubled by the constitutional ramifications of an administrative tribunal insulating its decision by making judicial review contingent on satisfaction of its order, including, as here, the payment of money … . It seems patently unfair to force a litigant to pay restitution as a condition for filing an appeal where the litigant has received a waiver of prior payment of his fine due to financial hardship … . Petitioner here is excused from paying a $5,000 fine as a condition to filing an appeal based on financial hardship, but, notwithstanding its financial hardship, it is forced to pay almost a quarter of a million dollars ($234,152.57) before it can file an appeal. Under this system, if you do not have the financial means to pay, you cannot come into court and seek review regardless of the merits of the challenged administrative determination … . Nonetheless, because this constitutional issue was not fully briefed before us, we do not decide it. Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings, 2020 NY Slip Op 03715, First Dept 7-2-20

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION INVOLVING THE SALE OF A BUSINESS AND A RELATED LEASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS AND NEITHER THE DOCTRINE OF PREVENTION NOR THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this complex business-sale and lease breach of contract action was properly granted. The transaction involved the sale of an ambulatory surgery business and lease of the premises to the buyer. More specifically, the transaction included an asset purchase agreement, an administrative services agreement, a lease agreement and a personal guarantee. The facts are too involved to fairly summarize. Essentially, the buyers (defendants) defaulted on several aspects of the contracts and their defenses were rejected. The First Department held the terms of the contracts were clear and unambiguous, the doctrine of prevention did not apply, and the frustration of purpose doctrine did not apply:

“`[U]nder the doctrine of prevention, when a party to a contract causes the failure of the performance of the obligation due, it cannot in any way take advantage of that failure'” … . In other words, “a party to a contract cannot rely on the failure of another to perform a condition precedent where he has frustrated or prevented the occurrence of the condition” … . …

“In order to invoke the doctrine of frustration of purpose, the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense” … . Examples of a lease’s purposes being declared frustrated have included situations where the tenant was unable to use the premises as a restaurant until a public sewer was completed, which took nearly three years after the lease was executed … , and where a tenant who entered into a lease of premises for office space could not occupy the premises because the certificate of occupancy allowed only residential use and the landlord refused to correct it  … .

However, “frustration of purpose . . . is not available where the event which prevented performance was foreseeable and provision could have been made for its occurrence” … . Center for Specialty Care, Inc. v CSC Acquisition I, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03631, First Dept 6-25-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT-LANDLORD VIOLATED NYC LOCAL LAW NO. 1 BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE HAZARDOUS LEAD-PAINT CONDITION IN PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined plaintiffs demonstrated defendants violated Local Law No. 1 of the City of New York in failing to take reasonable measures to address the hazardous lead-based paint condition in plaintiffs’ apartment. However defendants’ medical expert raised a question of fact whether defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s child’ (S.T.’s) injuries:

Under Local Law 1 defendants’ liability is not predicated on their observations of peeling paint or whether they are informed of it. Defendants’ liability does not depend on the mother demonstrating that she credibly complained about each and every instance or location of peeling paint. Even assuming that the mother never complained about the paint condition, defendants are charged with notice of the hazardous lead-based paint condition under Local Law 1 from the time that defendants were aware that S.T. moved into apartment. Moreover, Local Law 1 imposes on landlords “a specific duty to ameliorate hazardous levels of lead-based paint” … . Defendants cannot avoid liability by attempting to shift their statutory obligation to the mother by questioning her memory or her credibility, or for failing to inform them when the paint began to peel. Shifting the burden to the mother is inconsistent with the purpose of Local Law 1 which “is unquestionably intended to protect a definite class of persons [plaintiffs] from a particular hazard they are incapable of avoiding themselves” … . S.T. v 1727-29 LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03630, First Deptp 6-25-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was necessary on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant alleged defense counsel overstated the risk of deportation causing defendant to reject a favorable plea offer:

A defense attorney’s performance is deficient as a matter of law where he or she fails to accurately advise a client of the risk of deportation … . Here, defendant complains that his counsel overstated the immigration consequences of accepting an offer of a guilty plea to petit larceny by advising him that it would “definitely” result in deportation, when in fact it would only have rendered him deportable with the possibility of discretionary relief. Thus, defendant asserts that he rejected a favorable plea offer based on erroneous advice that the conviction would result in mandatory deportation.

We find that a hearing is necessary to determine whether counsel inaccurately advised defendant of the risk of deportation and if so, whether defendant was prejudiced by the attorney’s misadvice … . People v Qinghua Ni, 2020 NY Slip Op 03621, First Dept 6-25-20

 

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY PAID A BROKER FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY DEFENDANT INSURER BUT THE INSURER CANCELLED THE POLICY FOR NONPAYMENT; THE INSURER ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS NOT IN THE CHAIN OF BROKERS LEADING FROM PLAINTIFFS TO THE INSURER; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-insurer’s (Interstate’s) motion for summary judgment in this “wrongful policy cancellation” suit should not have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged they paid a broker for the policy issued by Interstate . The premiums never reached Interstate. Interstate alleged the broker was not in the chain of brokers leading from plaintiffs to Interstate. The policy was cancelled for nonpayment:

Plaintiffs allege that they paid a broker the initial premium for the excess liability coverage issued by defendants, and that the broker also procured a financing agreement for them for the balance of the premiums. The party financing the premiums paid the broker on plaintiffs’ behalf and plaintiffs complied with the financing agreement. Plaintiffs’ president testified that plaintiffs only dealt with that broker, who delivered the policies to them. However, the premiums never reached defendants, who canceled the policies. Thereafter, three persons were killed during the term of the policies in an accident on plaintiffs’ premises when the decedents inhaled hydrogen sulfide fumes (the accident). Defendants disclaimed coverage.

Where an insured makes timely payment to a broker in the chain of brokers and the insurer delivers the policy to the broker pursuant to the broker’s request, Insurance Law § 2121 precludes the insurer from canceling the policy based on nonpayment of premiums where the broker did not remit the payment to the insurer … .

Here, the record is replete with triable issues of fact as to whether the broker with whom plaintiffs state they dealt was in the chain of brokers leading from plaintiffs to Interstate, such that the payment of the premiums to the broker was sufficient to bind Interstate. Plaintiffs referred to the testimony of their president that the broker was the only broker used by them, and that the broker’s employee delivered the policies to them. Moreover, the premium checks were made payable to the broker, who prepared a loss summary, and no evidence was presented demonstrating that another broker delivered the policies to plaintiffs. However, the absence of significant paperwork naming the broker cited by plaintiffs as a broker in the transaction, the testimony of the wholesale brokers that they did not deal with the broker cited by plaintiffs and would not do so, and the Notice of Excess Line Placement naming a different entity as plaintiffs’ broker, raise questions that preclude summary judgment in favor of either plaintiffs or Interstate. Royal Waste Servs., Inc. v Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03616, First Dept 6-25-20

 

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS RE: DEBRIS IN PASSAGEWAYS AND KEEPING EQUIPMENT IN GOOD REPAIR IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action should not have been granted. There were questions of fact whether the Industrial Code provisions re: debris in passageways and keeping equipment in good repair were violated. Plaintiff was injured when a wheeled dumpster allegedly tipped over:

Plaintiff’s claim premised upon § 23-1.7(e)(2), which concerns debris in passageways, is viable because the area where the accident occurred was a passageway for the purposes of that provision … . The provision applies not just when loose debris causes a direct trip and fall, but also in circumstances similar to those involved here … .

With regard to § 23-1.28(b), which pertains to hand-propelled vehicles, and § 23-1.5(c), which prohibits use of machinery or equipment that is not in good repair and safe working condition, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the wheeled dumpster was not defective … . Sancino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 03615, First Dept 6-25-20

 

,

PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding because the petitioner and the respondent were not members of the same family or household and had not been in an intimate relationship:

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding brought by the foster mother of respondent’s biological children. Petitioner failed to establish that she and respondent, who are not members of the same family or household, are or have been in an intimate relationship (see Family Court Act § 812[1][e] …). Petitioner testified that she did not even know respondent’s first name. It appears from the record that petitioner’s contact with respondent has been limited to scheduling visitation with the children at the agency and, perhaps, interacting with respondent when she went to petitioner’s home to pick up the children for visits. Matter of Veronica C. v Ariann D., 2020 NY Slip Op 03612, First Dept 6-25-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE VERSUS CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law (HRL) properly survived summary judgment. Issues of fact were raised about whether defendant sufficiently engaged in dialogue about accommodating plaintiff’s needs prior to terminating her employment. The decision explains the different proof requirement for disability discrimination and accommodation under the NYSHML and the NYCHML, noting that the NYCHML imposes a heavier burden on the employer than the NYSHRL:

Under both the State and City HRLs, “the first step in providing a reasonable accommodation is to engage in a good faith interactive process that assesses the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested. The interactive process continues until, if possible, an accommodation reasonable to the employee and employer is reached” … . * * *

Unlike the State HRL where the employer must “engage[] in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of” an accommodation … , the City HRL clearly requires a more rigorous process … . Indeed, to emphasize the seriousness by which employers must engage in the interactive process, the City Council amended the City HRL in 2018 … . The Committee Report … states: “This bill would clarify the reasonable accommodation requirement by expressly requiring, as a part of the reasonable accommodation process, that covered entities engage in a cooperative dialog with individuals who they know or should know may require accommodation.” * * *

Here, defendant cannot prevail in its summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s State HRL disability claim because there are issues of fact as to whether defendant engaged plaintiff in a good faith interactive process to ascertain the viability of an appropriate accommodation. * * *

Given that the City HRL is even broader than the State HRL … , defendant has likewise failed to show that it engaged in an interactive process with plaintiff. Hosking v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 03484, First Dept 6-18-20

 

,

BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK, AFTER THE CUSTOMER’S FUNDS WERE WIRED TO THAT OTHER BANK (PURSUANT TO AN AGREED ARRANGEMENT), WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR UNDER A MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED THEORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CHECK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined the defendant Signature Bank was not liable under the Uniform Commercial Code or under a money had and received theory for the misappropriation of an “official check” for $292,000:

According to the affidavit of Patrick Manzi, Signature’s senior vice president and director of bank operations, “[a]t the time in question, Signature did not issue its own official checks.” … [U]nder an agreement between Signature and Integrated Payment Systems Inc. (IPS), Signature customers were provided by IPS with computer software and check forms that gave them the capability, upon Signature’s approval, to print out a Signature “Official Check” at their own offices. Although such a check bore Signature’s logo and the signatures of Signature officers, and designated Signature as the “Drawer,” the check also indicated in the lower left corner that it was “Issued by Integrated Payment Systems Inc., Englewood, Colorado” through “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Denver, Colorado.” In addition, the check bore Chase’s ABA routing number.

In sum, when a Signature customer requested the issuance of an official check, Signature would debit the customer’s account in the requested amount, wire the same amount to the IPS account at Chase, and notify the customer that it had permission to print out the check. In essence, official checks of this kind were drawn by Signature, not on its own account, but on the IPS account at Chase.

Using the above-described procedure, R & L [the Signature customer] procured the issuance of a Signature “Official Check” in the amount of $292,000, payable to … settlement agent, Steven J. Baum P.C.. The check identified R & L as the “Remitter.”… According to a principal of R & L, R & L “forwarded the $292,000 bank check to Kim Saunders, the title closer, who undertook on behalf of the title company . . . to forward this check to Steven J. Baum, P.C. to pay off the seller’s [sic] mortgage.”

It is undisputed that Steven J. Baum P.C., the payee of the check, never received it. The check was, through some unknown chain of events, misappropriated, improperly endorsed, and deposited into the joint account that the sellers of the underlying real property (defendants Richards and Massias) maintained at defendant TD Bank, N.A. The check was subsequently presented for payment to Chase, the drawee bank, which paid it … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03483, First Dept 6-18-20

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have made findings which would allow the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS):

The evidence shows that the subject child was unmarried and under the age of 21 at the time of the special findings hearing and order (see generally 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J]; 8 CFR 204.11[c] … ). The Family Court’s appointment of a guardian rendered the child dependent on a juvenile court … .

The evidence also established that reunification with the child’s parents was not viable due to neglect or abandonment. The child testified that, with no prior warning, his father left him in the United States with his uncle (petitioner), and that his parents later told him that they could not support him and did not want him back. The child further stated, and petitioner corroborated, that he had only occasional contact with his parents, and received no gifts or support from them, since coming here. This was sufficient to “evince[] an intent to forego . . . parental rights and obligations” or a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care to supply the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, or supervision … .

In determining whether reunification was viable, the Family Court should not have refused to consider evidence of circumstances which occurred after the child’s 18th, but before his 21st, birthday … .

The evidence also demonstrated that it is not in the best interests of the child to return to Thailand, where his parents reside, or to be sent to live in Bangladesh, where he has citizenship but has never resided. The child presented evidence that his parents would not accept him if he returned to Thailand, that his Thai visa was on the verge of expiring and he had no way to renew it, and that he had no other place to live or way to support himself in Thailand or Bangladesh … . He also presented evidence that he was doing well in petitioner’s care … . Matter of Khan v Shahida Z., 2020 NY Slip Op 03480, First Dept 6-18-20

 

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