You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT WALLS, THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) ,241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in the process of taking down two bathroom walls when the ceiling collapsed:

To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on an injury resulting from the failure of a completed and permanent building structure (in this case, the collapse of a ceiling), a plaintiff must show that the failure of the structure in question was a foreseeable risk of the task he was performing, creating a need for protective devices of the kind enumerated in the statute … .

Here, there are issues of fact as to whether the ceiling was in such an advanced state of disrepair due to water damage that plaintiff’s work on the bathroom walls exposed him to a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard, the fall of the ceiling, and whether the absence of a type of protective device enumerated under Labor Law § 240(1) was a proximate cause of his injuries. Because the evidence of water stains on the bathroom ceiling could provide constructive notice of a dangerous condition, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was also improperly granted. …

Defendants failed to show that plaintiff was not engaged in demolition work to trigger Labor Law § 241(6). His task was part of a larger project that included the demolition of interior walls, “which altered the structural integrity of the building'”( … Industrial Code § 23-1.4[b][16]). Issues of fact exist as to whether Industrial Code § 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c), pertaining to demolition, were violated or whether any such violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Clemente v 205 W. 103 Owners Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-18-20

 

UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S DISTRESS SIGNAL, A GROUP OF MEN NEAR THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER YELLING, DEFENDANT’S STRUGGLING WITH THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, DEFENDANT’S BREAKING FREE OF AN OFFICER’S RESTRAINT AND RUNNING, DEFENDANT’S FORCIBLY TAKING PROPERTY FROM THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, AND THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, COMBINED TO JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT; THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY REOPENED THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant at the time defendant was seized and searched. Therefore defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The court noted that the distress signal made by the undercover officer together with the observation by Officer Regina of a group of men near the undercover officer yelling provided reasonable suspicion. Seeing defendant struggling with the undercover officer and the defendant’s breaking free and running when an officer attempted to restrain him provided probable cause for arrest. The First Department further determined the suppression hearing was properly reopened to allow the People to present additional testimony. The evidence at the reopened hearing provided another lawful basis for defendant’s arrest (the defendant had forcibly taken property from the undercover officer–probable cause imputed to the arresting officer by the fellow officer rule):

While Regina’s testimony established the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing before rendering a decision in order to permit the People to call an officer with additional information tending to establish reasonable suspicion … .The court had not made any ruling, and the circumstances did not pose a risk of tailored testimony.

Upon granting the People’s motion to present additional evidence, the court expressly stated that it had not yet rendered a decision … . Despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, there is nothing in the hearing transcript to suggest that the court previously forecasted its decision or provided guidance to the People. The court’s very brief remark at the end of the initial hearing about an aspect of the facts cannot be viewed as “direction from the court” … , and was highly unlikely to result in tailored testimony … .

The evidence adduced at the reopened hearing established another lawful basis for defendant’s arrest. The undercover officer testified that, as he was attempting to buy drugs from another person, defendant interfered and forcibly took property from the officer. This gave the undercover officer probable cause to arrest defendant for robbery, which may be imputed to the arresting officer by way of the fellow officer rule … . The combination of the undercover officer’s distress signal, the field team officers’ observation of defendant in a struggle with the undercover officer, and the undercover officer’s act of chasing defendant satisfied the requirement that the arresting officer act on “direction of” or “communication with” a fellow officer … . The court’s general finding of probable cause can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing this theory … . People v Fraser, 2020 NY Slip Op 01037, First Dept 2-13-20

 

DEFENDANT’S FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM DURING THE TESTIMONY BY THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court should not have excluded defendant’s family members from the trial during the testimony of the undercover officers:

Following a Hinton hearing at which there was no testimony that defendant or any member of his family threatened or otherwise posed a threat to either of two testifying undercover officers, defense counsel requested that family members be permitted to attend the officers’ trial testimony. Although the prosecutor made no argument in opposition to this application, the court denied it, without making any supporting findings. This was error. “[A]n order of closure that does not make an exception for family members will be considered overbroad, unless the prosecution can show specific reasons why the family members must be excluded” … . We reject the People’s argument that the defense was obligated to identify specific family members who might attend the proceedings, in the absence of any request by the prosecutor or the court that it do so, as incompatible with the “presumption of openness” that applies in this context … . Moreover the court did not ask any questions to clarify which family members wanted to attend before issuing the closure order. People v Rivera, 2020 NY Slip Op 01035, First Dept 2-13-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MEDICAL CENTER IS LIABLE UNDER THE OSTENSIBLE AGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there is a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this medical malpractice action; (2) the lack of informed consent cause of action should be reinstated; (3) there is a question of fact whether the medical center (NYU Langone) is liable for the anesthesiologist (Coopersmith) who performed the pre-surgery nerve block pursuant to the doctrine of ostensible agency; and (4) the action against the doctor who assisted Dr. Coopersmith was properly dismissed because she didn’t exercise any independent judgment in the procedure:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that she sufficiently established that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to her cause of action for medical malpractice. The parties’ experts disagreed as to whether plaintiff’s injury ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence, raising an issue of fact on that point … . Plaintiff also established that defendants were in control of all instruments used in the nerve block, and plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to her injuries … . To the extent that defendants’ expert opined that post-operative symptoms and image studies were not consistent with needle trauma to a nerve, that opinion did not refute plaintiff’s assertion of res ipsa loquitur because it failed to identify any other possible cause of plaintiff’s plexopathy, let alone a more probable cause … . Moreover, defendants’ expert did not dispute that plaintiff sus tained nerve damage and did not opine that the nerve damage pre-existed the surgery. …

We agree with defendants that they were entitled to a determination that no actual agency existed between NYU Langone and Dr. Coopersmith because NYU Langone did not employ or otherwise control Dr. Coopersmith. However, we find that an issue of fact exists as to whether NYU Langone could be held liable for Dr. Coopersmith’s actions in his treatment of plaintiff through ostensible agency. It is undisputed that plaintiff was treated by Dr. Feldman [the surgeon] because she sought out his care. However, Dr. Feldman testified that he did not choose which anesthesiologist at NYU Langone would perform the nerve block on plaintiff, instead an anesthesiologist was assigned by the Department of Anesthesia. A jury could reasonably infer from this testimony that Dr. Coopersmith was provided by NYU Langone and that plaintiff reasonably believed that Dr. Coopersmith was acting on NYU Langone’s behalf … . Sklarova v Coopersmith, 2020 NY Slip Op 01033, First Dept 2-13-20

 

INJURY CAUSED BY CEMENT BOARDS FALLING FROM AN A-FRAME CART COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined injury caused by cement boards falling from an A-frame cart was covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

The evidence shows that plaintiff and his coworkers were moving an A-frame cart, loaded with approximately 16 cement boards measuring 4′ x 8′ in dimension and weighing approximately 100 pounds each, when its wheel became stuck and the cart would not move. Plaintiff and his coworkers then pushed and pulled the cart to free it, and, in the process, the cart and the boards suddenly tipped, with the boards landing on plaintiff’s left leg. Given the weight and height of the cement boards on the A-frame cart, the elevation differential was within the purview of the statute … . Touray v HFZ 11 Beach St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01029, First Dept 2-13-20

 

DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1); THE ARTICULATING LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WHICH FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT AGAINST AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant which entered a construction management agreement with the Port Authority was a statutory agent of the Port Authority and was liable for plaintiff’s injury pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of an articulating lift when backing down a ramp:

Plaintiffs demonstrated that defendants can be held liable as a statutory “agent” of the Port Authority based on the contract documents that they submitted on the motion. Those documents impose not only the responsibility to coordinate the work but also a broad responsibility for “overall job site safety,” including the implementation of the Port Authority’s Safety Health and Environmental Program, as well as measures to ensure worker safety, thereby granting the construction manager “the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … .

Moreover, plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. As the motion court found, plaintiff’s testimony established prima facie that the articulating lift was a safety device and that it’s failure to protect him from the elevation-related risk that he faced was the proximate cause of his injury. Lind v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 01026, First Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, HERE THE DECEDENT’S SIGNATURE ON THE GUARANTY WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN INTERESTED WITNESS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GUARANTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the personal guaranty signed by decedent was not authenticated. Therefore plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the guaranty:

We modify, however, with respect to the cause of action under the personal guaranty purportedly signed by the decedent, because although documentary evidence is admissible notwithstanding the dead man’s statute, it must be “authenticated by a source other than an interested witness’s testimony” … . Having failed to authenticate the guaranty through “a source other than an interested witness’s testimony,” plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the guaranty. Galpern v Air Chefs, L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 01021, First Dept 2-13-20

 

,

DESPITE THE BRAKE-FAILURE ALLEGATION IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT BRAKE FAILURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant did not raise a question of fact about the brake-failure allegation:

” … [D]efendants’ contention that their vehicle’s brake failure was the cause of the accident was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to liability. Defendants failed to satisfy the two-pronged showing that the accident was caused by an unanticipated problem with the vehicle’s brakes, and that they exercised reasonable care to keep the brakes in good working order … .

Summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor is not premature. Both plaintiff and defendant driver had firsthand knowledge of the accident, and submitted affidavits. However, defendants did not submit any evidence concerning maintenance of their vehicle. Defendants only speculate that there may be facts supporting their opposition to plaintiff’s motion which exist but cannot yet be stated … . Quiros v Hawkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 01020, First Dept 2-13-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE INCIDENT AND DEMONSTRATED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Although the excuse was inadequate, the respondents had timely notice of the incident and were not prejudiced by the delay:

In determining whether to grant an extension, the key factors to consider are: (1) “whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame”; (2) “whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter”; and (3) “whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense” … .

Here, although petitioners failed to offer any reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve a notice of claim, this failure is not, standing alone, fatal … . Indeed, petitioners sufficiently demonstrated that respondents acquired actual notice of the event within a reasonable time thereafter, and that respondents would not be substantially prejudiced in their defense by the delay. Specifically, there is a surveillance video of the accident [which]  … the claims administrator … acknowledged having in its possession approximately six months after the accident. Moreover, the operator of the lift that injured petitioner was employed by respondents.

In addition, the correspondence … suggests that … only one month after plaintiff’s accident, respondents’ insurers were aware that the claims administrator anticipated that petitioner would be asserting a claim based on the … . … Our conclusion is further supported by the relatively short delay in petitioners’ moving for leave to file a late notice of claim. Matter of Sproule v New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01015, First Dept 2-13-20

 

,

VERDICT AWARDING $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE AND PAIN SUFFERING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, $100,000 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the damages verdict awarding $0 for future pain and suffering should have been set aside:

The jury’s award of damages for past pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c]). Plaintiff sustained a bimalleolar ankle fracture and underwent two surgeries, the first involving implantation of hardware in the ankle and the second involving arthroscopy and removal of the hardware and some scar tissue. Comparing this matter to similar cases … , we find that $275,000 is reasonable compensation … .

The award for future damages also deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501[c]). Defendant’s expert agreed that plaintiff’s injury is permanent and that he has developed arthritis in his left ankle, which may require treatment in the future, including the possibility of an ankle replacement. In light of the foregoing, we find that $100,000 for future pain and suffering is reasonable compensation … . Thomas v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 01001, First Dept 2-13-20

 

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