You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON UNDENIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS OTHER GROUNDS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-attorneys’ motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint based upon documentary evidence should have been granted. The plaintiffs-insurers’ alleged the defendants negligently advised them to disclaim insurance coverage:

… [P]laintiffs allege that they sustained damages when they relied on defendants’ negligent advice that they could disclaim coverage of their insured in an underlying malpractice action. In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants properly relied on documentary evidence, including the challenged disclaimer letter and the relevant policy, since their authenticity is undisputed and their contents are “essentially undeniable” ( … CPLR 3211[a][1]). The disclaimer letter sets forth an analysis of plaintiffs’ right to refuse coverage to their insured on two independent bases. Plaintiffs’ failure to allege with specificity or argue that one of the two bases for defendants’ advice was incorrect, requires dismissal of this legal malpractice action.

Aside from this, defendants’ alleged malpractice concerning other issues is subject to the attorney-judgment rule … . Since plaintiffs failed to show that the issues were elementary or subject to settled authority, defendants could not be liable for malpractice based on their prediction of how a court would interpret the policy … .

Further, plaintiffs’ failure to explain how it was that any alleged error by defendants prejudiced their defense in the subsequent coverage action also mandates dismissal of the malpractice claim … . Lloyd’s Syndicate 2987 v Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 02365, First Dept 4-23-20

 

, ,

FATHER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE COURT TOOK SIX MONTHS TO HOLD A POST-DISPOSITIONAL HEARING AFTER A FAILED TRIAL DISCHARGE OF THE CHILDREN TO FATHER; THE CHILDREN WERE FINALLY RETURNED TO FATHER AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that father was entitled to an expedited post-dispositional hearing after the children were removed from the father’s custody based upon a failed trial discharge. The children were eventually returned to father, but the hearing took six months and the children were not returned to father until eight months after the decision was issued. The First Department ruled on the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine, finding that this situation was likely to recur. The court held that father was entitled to an “expedited hearing” after the children were removed under due process principles:

We find that a parent’s private interest in having custody of his or her children, the children’s private interest in residing with their parent, and the undisputed harm to these interests are factors that merit equal consideration. On this record, ACS [Administration for Children’s Services]  fails to establish that the lengthy delay was related to its interest in protecting the children. Rather, the hearing was prolonged over six months because of the court’s and attorneys’ scheduling conflicts. There is no indication that the completion of the hearing was caused by difficult legal issues, or by the need to obtain elusive evidence, or by some other factor related to an accurate assessment of the best interest of the children … .

Even though this is a post-dispositional matter, the father is entitled to the strict due process safeguards afforded in neglect proceedings. “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State” … . This rationale equally applies to the primacy of a parent’s fundamental liberty interest, and the importance of procedural due process in protecting that interest, particularly when a parent and child are physically separated … . Accordingly, we find that a parent is entitled to a prompt hearing on the agency’s determination to remove the children from his or her physical custody through a failed trial discharge. Matter of F.W. (Monroe W.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02385, First Dept 4-23-20

 

,

NONSIGNATORY NOT BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ENGAGEMENT LETTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, noting that Supreme Court should have decided whether a nonsignatory was bound by an arbitration clause and deciding the issue in the interest of judicial economy, determined the nonsignatory was not bound:

Millennium Lab Holdings, Inc. and Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (Millennium Holdings, LLC), pursuant to an engagement letter, retained petitioner KPMG LLP to audit their financial statements for certain time periods. The engagement letter contained a clause requiring arbitration of “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Engagement Letter or the services provided hereunder.” * * *

The parties agree that the only theory under which respondent, as a nonsignatory to the engagement letter containing the arbitration clause, can be required to arbitrate is on the equitable estoppel/direct benefits grounds. We find that petitioner has not met its “heavy burden” … under that theory.

The benefits that the investors whose interests respondent represents derived from the engagement letters between petitioner and nonparty Millennium were “merely indirect” … . Here … respondent pleaded solely common-law claims and did not invoke the engagement letter … . …

Millennium and petitioner did not contemplate that the investors represented by respondent would benefit from the engagement letter. …

… [T]here is no indication in the record that the investors whom respondent represents had actual knowledge of the engagement letters between petitioner and Millennium … . Matter of KPMG LLP v Kirschner, 2020 NY Slip Op 02286, First Dept 4-16-20

 

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY A CO-EMPLOYEE’S INTENTIONAL TORT (ASSAULT) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries from an intentional tort (assault) by an employee:

Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when, as he was attempting to sit down, defendant, his coworker, pulled his chair out from under him, causing him to fall to the ground. After plaintiff’s accident, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that he was entitled to benefits for a work-related injury.

An employee’s rights to Workers’ Compensation benefits is the employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer or coemployee for injuries sustained during his employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6]) … ). The Workers’ Compensation Law, however, does not prevent an employee from recovering for intentional torts, such as an assault … .

Here, the motion court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for assault. There are issues of fact as to whether defendant’s conduct placed plaintiff in “imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . Donnelly v Christian. 2020 NY Slip Op 02279, First Dept 4-16-20

 

LABOR LAW 200, 241(6) AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WORKPLACE SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor law 200, 241(6)  and common law negligence causes action properly survived summary judgment in this workplace slip and fall case. Plaintiff fell going down a staircase and there was evidence that dust and perhaps paint was on the stairway associated with sanding and painting the walls. Although the stairway was not a passageway pursuant to the Industrial Code, there was a question of fact whether the stairway was a work area, even though no work was being done at the time of the fall. The defendant responsible for cleaning up, Magnetic, could be liable as a statutory agent:

… [P]laintiff’s identification of the cause of his slip and fall is not merely speculation. He testified that after he fell down the stairs, the steps he could see from the bottom of the staircase were dusty, his clothes were dusty, and his jacket was wet with paint. Further, there is testimony in the record that the walls of the stairway had been sanded and painted before plaintiff’s accident. * * *

Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) may serve as a predicate for plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim, as it applies to slipping as well as tripping hazards … . …

Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) is applicable to plaintiff’s accident. While a staircase used to provide access to a job site is not a passageway or other working surface within the meaning of the provision unless it is the sole means of access … , the provision is applicable if the staircase was a work area … . …

Insofar as Magnetic was delegated authority for the injury-producing work, retained subcontractors to perform the injury-producing work, and was responsible for clean-up at the site, it may be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6) as a statutory agent … . Ohadi v Magnetic Constr. Group Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02278, First Dept 4-16-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO CROSS-EXAMINE A DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined, although the trial court erred in allowing cross-examination of a defense witness (and co-defendant), Calderon, about prior uncharged offenses allegedly involving defendant, the error was harmless. The dissenters argued the error was reversible:

We agree with the dissent that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined Calderon concerning three other crimes in which he had left the scene in a dark SUV. Some of the questions included a partial or complete recitation of the license plate number of the SUV used in the instant crime. This was a clear attempt to associate defendant with uncharged crimes, and the court should have sustained defense counsel’s objections to this line of questioning. Similarly, the prosecutor should not have made two references in her summation to the use of this “getaway vehicle” in other crimes when discussing Calderon’s testimony. * * *

The evidence at trial demonstrates that there is no “significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility,” that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the references to the SUV’s connection with Calderon’s other crimes … . People v Vasquez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02237, First Dept 4-9-20

 

,

NOTWITHSTANDING THE TENANT’S LEASE-OBLIGATION TO KEEP THE SIDEWALK FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, THE LANDLORD HAD THE NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO KEEP A RAMP LEADING TO THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of the property leased by a restaurant had a nondelegable duty to keep a metal ramp leading from the restaurant to the sidewalk (a special use of the sidewalk) in a safe condition, notwithstanding the restaurant’s lease-obligation to remove ice and snow from the sidewalk. Plaintiff, a restaurant employee, slipped and fell on snow and ice on the ramp:

Plaintiff, an employee of the restaurant owned by third-party defendant, slipped and fell on snow and ice on a metal ramp leading from the side door of the restaurant to the sidewalk. Third-party defendant leases the ground floor and basement space from defendant landowner. The evidence shows that the ramp was erected over the public sidewalk alongside defendant’s building, and is not included in the diagram of the leased space. Further, the director of leasing for defendant’s property manager testified that the ramp was built for use by people with disabilities.

Notwithstanding any lease provisions obligating the restaurant to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk, defendant, as owner of the property abutting the sidewalk, had a nondelegable duty to keep the sidewalk, and any special uses made of the sidewalk, in a safe condition, including the removal of snow and ice … . Dembele v 373-381 Pas Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02256, First Dept 4-9-20

 

, , ,

THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA OPINION INCLUDE: GENERAL CAUSATION; SPECIFIC CAUSATION; WHETHER THE CLOSING PREJUDICED THE JURY; AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissent, determined there was sufficient evidence of causation to raise a jury question in this asbestos-mesothelioma action. The issues addressed included: (1) general causation; (2) specific causation; (3) whether plaintiff’s counsel’s closing required a new trial; and (4) the apportionment of damages. The opinion is far too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

The Court of Appeals recognized that precise information and exact details are not always available in toxic tort cases and they may not be necessary so long as there is “evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude” that the defendant’s offending substance “has probably caused” the kind of harm of which the plaintiff complains … . * * *

After each sides’ attorney highlighted the weaknesses in the other sides’ expert’s scientific evidence and authorities, it then became the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and decide which opinion was more credible … . There is no legal basis to disturb the jury’s findings and verdict in favor of plaintiff … . * * *

There is no basis, in this record, for a finding that the weight of the evidence presented at trial preponderated in favor of finding no specific causation. * * *

Plaintiff’s counsel’s summation comments were isolated remarks during a very lengthy summation. They were not pervasive, egregious or an obdurate pattern of remarks that inflamed the jury into believing that the focus of plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos contaminated talc was other than airborne particulants that she had breathed in for many years … . * * *

Issues raised by plaintiff on its cross appeal regarding the court’s calculation of offsets for payments made by the settling defendants … do have merit. General Obligations Law § 15-108 requires that a judgment be adjusted by subtracting the greater of other tortfeasors’ equitable share of the damages or the amount actually paid by them. Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am., 2020 NY Slip Op 02261, First Dept 4-9-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S REPEATED REQUESTS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that defendant had been denied his right to represent himself. The opinion is basically a detailed rendition of the facts demonstrating that defendant repeatedly requested that he be allowed to represent himself and was repeatedly assigned new counsel after he repeatedly was found mentally fit for trial. There was no evidence defendant was seeking to delay the trial or otherwise interfere with the proceedings:

When a defendant desires to exercise the right to represent himself, “the court’s only function is to ensure that the defendant is acting knowingly and voluntarily, that is, that the defendant is aware of the disadvantages and risks of waiving his right to counsel” … . If the waiver is knowing and voluntary, the request must be granted … . * * *

The court’s belated finding … that defendant intended to “disrupt” the proceedings cannot be used as post-hoc justification of its earlier denials of repeated requests to proceed pro se. Defendant’s requests to proceed pro se were denied throughout 2008, 2009, and much of 2010, without mention of “disruption” as a basis.

It was hardly surprising that defendant expressed increasing frustration with the process, given that he had repeatedly been found fit to proceed, and yet the court continued to deny his requests to proceed pro se and to ignore his complaints regarding counsel. As the Court of Appeals has observed, in finding a defendant’s “outburst” insufficient to trump his right to self-representation,

“Just as the court may not rely on a postruling outburst to validate an erroneous denial, the court may not goad the defendant to disruptive behavior by conducting its inquiry in an abusive manner calculated to belittle a legitimate application. An outburst thus provoked will not justify the forfeiture of the right to self-representation” … .

That defendant on occasion agreed to the appointment of new lawyers does not render his requests to proceed pro se equivocal … . A defendant who elects to proceed pro se “is frequently motivated by dissatisfaction with trial strategy or a lack of confidence in counsel” … .

An erroneous denial of the right to defend onself is not subject to a harmless error analysis. We are therefore obliged to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. People v Trammell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02190, First Dept 4-2-20

 

PRIOR CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT FROM ELIGIBILITY FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; IT IS NOT AN ‘ARMED FELONY’ (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon was not an “armed felony” did not render defendant ineligible for youthful offender status:

Defendant’s prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for “possess[ing] a loaded firearm” (Penal Law § 265.03[1][b]) was not an “armed felony” within the meaning of CPL 720.10(2)(a). As relevant here, CPL 1.20, which CPL 720.10(2)(a) incorporates, defines “armed felony” as “any violent felony offense defined in section 70.02 of the penal law that includes as an element . . . possession . . . of a deadly weapon, if the weapon is a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury may be discharged” … . The statutory definition of “loaded firearm” explicitly does not require that the firearm be “actually” loaded, because it includes within the definition a “firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm” (Penal Law § 265.00[15]). In contrast, the definition of “deadly weapon” contains no proviso indicating that an actually unloaded weapon is deemed “loaded,” and the definition is therefore met, where usable ammunition is readily available. Accordingly, “in order to be a deadly weapon, a gun must actually be loaded, as that term is commonly understood” … . Since a “loaded firearm” is therefore not always a “deadly weapon,” the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty did not “include[] as an element . . . possession . . . of a deadly weapon” (CPL 1.20[41][a]), and the court should not have found that defendant’s conviction rendered him presumptively ineligible. People v Ochoa, 2020 NY Slip Op 02156, First Dept 4-2-20

 

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