You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

BUILDING OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO ENSURE A SMOKE DETECTOR WAS FUNCTIONAL, DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THE OWNER REGULARLY INSPECTED THE SMOKE DETECTORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant landlord could not be held liable for the failure to ensure a smoke detector was functional:

In this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured as a result of a fire in his apartment due to defendant building owner’s negligent failure to provide an operable smoke detector, defendant demonstrated prima facie that he satisfied his statutory duty to provide a functional smoke detector in the apartment, and accordingly, the obligation to maintain the smoke detector was assumed by plaintiff (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2045[a][1], [b][1], [2]).

Plaintiff’s argument that defendant voluntarily assumed a duty to ensure his smoke detector was in good working condition by regularly inspecting tenants’ smoke detectors, is unavailing. “Liability under this theory may be imposed only if defendant’s conduct placed plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than he would have been in had defendant done nothing” … . Here, however, plaintiff provided no evidence that he relied on defendant’s inspection of his smoke detector to ensure its functionality, and instead testified that he never saw the building superintendent inspect his smoke detector. Figueroa v Parkash, 2020 NY Slip Op 00525, First Dept 1-28-20

 

, , ,

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DECLARED A MISTRIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A JUROR’S WEEKEND PLANS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED; RETRIAL BARRED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, granting petitioner’s application for a writ of prohibition and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court should not have, sua sponte, declared a mistrial to accommodate a juror’s weekend travel plans. Retrial was barred:

The trial court was not compelled by manifest necessity to declare a mistrial and terminate the proceedings …, and accordingly, retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Federal and New York State Constitutions … . It was an abuse of discretion to declare a mistrial in order to accommodate a juror’s weekend travel plans, including a Friday, which she belatedly informed the court about during deliberations, where the court, as requested by defendant, reasonably could have directed the juror to report for deliberations the following day, and the court also failed to confirm that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked at the time … . Matter of Bannister v Wiley, 2020 NY Slip Op 00522, First Dept 1-28-20

 

, ,

THE INTERIM DECISION ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ORDER; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the appeal in this Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) case, determined the “interim decision” was not an appealable paper, depriving the First Department of jurisdiction:

This proceeding stems from Spectrum News NY1’s (Spectrum) attempts to gain access to video files from the voluntary body camera experiment. Specifically, Spectrum filed a FOIL request for unredacted videos from the NYPD’s voluntary body camera program begun in 2014. NYPD denied the request, claiming that unredacted files were exempt from disclosure under FOIL. Spectrum then commenced this article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment compelling respondent NYPD to comply with its request. …

… [T]he parties stipulated that out of a disputed 328 videos, only 30 would be the subject of the hearing. Supreme Court then issued “an interim decision,” which was not the product of a motion for relief. Instead, the “interim decision,” among other things, permitted respondents to redact the faces of persons other than officers from any video footage recorded by the body cameras and to redact certain communications between officers … . …Supreme Court granted petitioner leave to appeal from the “interim decision.”

This appeal is thus taken from an “interim decision,” which is not an appealable paper. The lack of an appealable paper here deprives the Court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal of Spectrum’s appeal, albeit without prejudice. Where, as here, a party brings an appeal from a nonappealable paper, this Court regularly dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction … . While there are instances where this Court has deemed a paper denominated as a “decision” to nonetheless be appealable because it contained all the hallmarks of an order … , that is not the situation here. Matter of Spectrum News NY1 v New York City Police Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 00521, First Dept 1-28-20

 

DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON A REPORTER’S NAMING THE WRONG TEACHER AS HAVING BULLIED A FIFTH-GRADER PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE REPORTER HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO RELY ON THE STUDENT’S MOTHER AND ANOTHER SOURCE BOTH OF WHOM PROVIDED THE WRONG NAME (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant WPIX was not liable for an article about the bullying of a fifth-grader by a teacher. The teacher allegedly involved in the bullying had the last name “Rainbow,” but plaintiff, Starlight Rainbow, also a teacher, had no involvement with the student. The article misidentified the involved teacher as Starlight Rainbow. The First Department explained the standard of proof and found that the WPIX reporter had sufficient reason to rely on the wrong name provided by the student’s mother and another source. The court further found that there was no duty to retract the story:

The parties … agree that the article concerned a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff is not a public figure. Thus, to prevail on a defamation claim, plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that WPIX was “grossly irresponsible” in publishing the article on its website, in that it acted “without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199 [1975]). The gross irresponsibility standard of Chapadeau is more lenient than the actual malice standard applicable to public figures … . * * *

… .WPIX could not be held liable for failure to retract the article during the nearly seven months that elapsed from her August 2014 retraction demand to its removal of the article from its website in March, 2015 upon her commencement of this case. Plaintiff provides “no authority to support [her] argument that the Chapadeau standard imposes a duty to correct previously-acquired information — and the law does not recognize such an obligation” … . Rainbow v WPIX, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00499, First Dept 1-23-20

 

DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF TWO JURORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering a hearing, determined a juror’s expression of a romantic interest in a member of the prosecution team could amount to disqualifying juror misconduct. Allegations about another juror’s close relationship with a witness also warranted a hearing. The defense had moved to set aside the verdict alleging juror misconduct:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, that branch of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of alleged misconduct by two jurors (see CPL 330.40[2][f]).

The People’s trial preparation assistant, who assisted the trial prosecutors, disclosed that some time after the trial and before sentencing, he received a handwritten note in the mail from the jury foreperson, stating: “Now that the trial is over . . .” (ellipsis in original), followed by the juror’s first and last name, her juror number, the court part in which the trial had occurred, her phone number, and her address. The note also included a crossed-out phrase from which it could be inferred that the original version of the note had been written during the trial.

Under the circumstances, the note itself was sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact about whether the foreperson’s apparent romantic interest in the trial preparation assistant prevented her from deliberating fairly … . The assistant’s affidavit stating that he did not respond to the juror’s note or otherwise communicate with her at any time is not dispositive, as the issue is the juror’s misconduct or bias during the trial.

The court also erred with regard to a second juror. That juror had a sufficiently close relationship with a witness to warrant a hearing as to whether that juror engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose the relationship to the court. People v Guillen, 2020 NY Slip Op 00387, First Dept 1-21-20

 

, , ,

CLASS ACTION AGAINST NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY RE: LOSS OF HEAT AND/OR HOT WATER GOES FORWARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of the warranty of habitability cause of action should not have been dismissed . The plaintiff’s motion for certification of the “damages class” was granted. The class action concerned the loss of heat and/or hot water in NYC Housing Authority properties:

In order to prove a claim for breach of the warranty of habitability, plaintiffs must show the extensiveness of the breach, the manner in which it affected the health, welfare or safety of the tenants, and the measures taken by the landlord to alleviate the violation … .

NYCHA conceded that 80% of its housing units experienced heat and/or hot water outages during the relevant period, which demonstrates that the problems that affected each class member were system-wide. Thus, much of the proof will likely concern NYCHA’s overall deficiencies, rather than the breakdown of individual heating systems in individual buildings. The need to conduct individualized damages inquiries does not prevent class certification as long as common issues of liability predominate … .

In any event, the heating systems that failed served multiple housing units, and proof of NYCHA’s efforts to repair each system will be common to numerous class members. In order to address any concerns with the size or disparity of the class, the court can designate subclasses consisting of tenants of a particular NYCHA complex, development or building … .

Moreover, class action treatment is the most efficient method for adjudicating the claims of class members who lack the resources to bring individual actions for the small recovery they might obtain … . Diamond v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 00376, First Dept 1-21-20

 

, ,

NYC LOFT BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED TENANTS’ WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOFT LAW CONVERSION APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO OBTAIN RENT REGULATION COVERAGE OUTSIDE THE LOFT LAW’S STATUTORY SCHEME (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the tenants’ request to withdraw the conversion application under the Loft Law should have been granted by the NYC Loft Board:

This article 78 proceeding stems from an application for the legal conversion of certain lofts in New York City from commercial use to residential use pursuant to Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (§ 283), commonly known as the Loft Law. Where owners register covered buildings and comply with the Loft Law’s requirements, the Loft Law will deem a building an “interim multiple dwelling (IMD)” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 284[1]), which would allow the owner to collect rent from residential occupants, despite the lack of a residential certificate of occupancy (Multiple Dwelling Law §§ 283, 285, 301). The Loft Law requires landlords to bring converted residences up to code and prevents them from charging tenants for improvements until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (Multiple Dwelling Law § 284(1)). The Loft Law is administered by the New York City Loft Board (Multiple Dwelling Law § 282). * * *

Here, the petitioner tenant claims, and the Loft Board does not dispute, that there is a separate and independent track for the tenants to obtain rent regulation coverage outside the Loft Law’s statutory scheme. It is undisputed that the four residential occupancies are legal under New York City Zoning applicable to the area where the subject building is located. While the Rent Stabilization Law usually requires buildings to have six or more residential units, adjacent buildings with common facilities, ownership, and management are treated as one integrated unit, thereby constituting a horizontal multiple dwelling for purposes of rent stabilization … . In this case, the subject building is a rear building that adjoins a front building that is already subject to rent stabilization. Given that the buildings share common ownership — a sprinkler system, a plumbing system, and their respective electric meters and mailboxes are at the same location — the rear building appears to be part of a horizontal multiple dwelling that would be subject to rent stabilization once the residential certificate of occupancy is procured by the owner. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 00368, First Dept 1-16-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN HE RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR TURNING OFF THE ELECTRICITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240( 1) cause of action and he was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiff on a ladder when he received an electric shock. There was no showing the ladder was defective. ADCO, the company which was responsible for shutting off the was liable pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6):

Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries he sustained in a fall from a ladder while installing duct work on a building renovation project after either he received a shock or an arc fault occurred when he came into contact with a live electrical junction box. Summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim is precluded by an issue of fact as to whether the ladder, which was properly set up, provided plaintiff with proper protection … ; plaintiff had no problem with the ladder prior to the electric shock and questions of fact exist whether a scaffold could have prevented this accident. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.13(b)(2), (3) and (4) against ADCO, the electrical subcontractor, which failed to warn of and de-energize or “safe off” the junction box so that a worker would not come into contact with it. Because ADCO had been delegated authority to control the electrical work that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury, it was a statutory agent subject to liability under the statute … . Higgins v TST 375 Hudson, L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00358, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Martinez) was entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his 2007 judgment of conviction. At the time defendant pled guilty the court warned him there could be immigration consequences, but defense counsel told him he wouldn’t have to worry about deportation if he stayed out of trouble while on probation. In fact, however, deportation was mandatory. Supreme Court denied the motion based in part on defendant’s motivation for it, i.e., the expansion of his taxi business in Massachusetts. The First Department noted that plaintiff’s current motivation for the motion to vacate is irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a hearing in front of a different judge:

In the context of a guilty plea, the ultimate question of prejudice is whether there was a reasonable probability that a reasonable person in a defendant’s circumstances would have gone to trial if given constitutionally adequate advice … . A defendant must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational … . In that regard, appropriate factors to be weighed include, among others, evidence of defendant’s incentive, at the time of his plea, to remain in the United States rather than his native country; his respective family and employment ties at the time of his plea, to the United States, as compared to his country of origin; the strength of the People’s case; and defendant’s sentencing exposure … . In answering the prejudice question, judges should be cognizant that a noncitizen defendant confronts a very different calculus than confronts a United States citizen … . For a noncitizen defendant, “preserving [his] right to remain in the United States may be more important to [him] than any jail sentence”… . Thus, a determination of whether it would be rational for a defendant to reject a plea offer “must take into account the particular circumstances informing the defendant’s desire to remain in the United States” … .

Significantly, on the record before this Court, there is reason to believe that Martinez would have given paramount importance to avoiding deportation, if he had known that it was more than a mere possibility, but was an unavoidable consequence of his plea to an aggravated felony. Indeed, evidence regarding Martinez’s background completely supports his current assertion that his main focus has been always to remain in the United States. This much is undisputed: his long history in the United States, his efforts to become a citizen, his family circumstances, and his gainful employment in Massachusetts, all signal his strong connection to, and desire to remain in, the United States … . People v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 00252, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the law firm defendants demonstrated plaintiff attorney violated the confidentiality provision of her employment contract, the law firm was not entitled to enforcement of the liquidated damages provision of the contract because the law firm did not demonstrate it suffered any damage as a result of plaintiff’s breach. In addition, plaintiff’s cause of action alleging the law firm defendants violated an oral agreement promising her a five percent bonus related to attorney’s fees paid for cases in which she was involved should not have been dismissed because she presented some evidence she had in fact been paid several such bonuses:

“Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . “A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation. If, however, the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced” … . Although the party challenging the liquidated damages provision has the burden to prove that the liquidated damages are, in fact, an unenforceable penalty … , the party seeking to enforce the provision must necessarily have been damaged in order for the provision to apply … . Here, defendants did not identify to the motion court any damages that they sustained as a result of plaintiff’s breach of the agreement. …

The law firm defendants met their burden on summary judgment by providing plaintiff’s employment agreement which did not include any reference to a 5% nondiscretionary bonus, and which included a general merger clause requiring any modification to be in writing. However, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to this claim. … [T]he Court of Appeals has held that while generally an oral modification may not be enforced in light of a merger clause, an oral modification may be enforced if there is partial performance that is “unequivocally referable to the oral modification” or if one party “induced another’s significant and substantial reliance upon an oral modification.” Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00250, First Dept 1-14-20

 

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