You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

ALTHOUGH THE FREE-STANDING BRACE FRAME WAS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME IT FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that, although the brace frame and plaintiff were at the same level, the injury caused by the free-standing brace frame tipping over was covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

The brace frames … , which stood at least 12 feet tall and weighed approximately 1,500 pounds, were not connected to the excavator bucket or any other device either to hold them upright once the connector pins were removed or to lower them slowly to the ground. When plaintiff removed the last connector pin, the brace frame fell and struck him.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, this evidence establishes prima facie that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged is covered under Labor Law § 240(1). Although plaintiff and the brace frame were at the same level at the time of the accident, the work plaintiff was doing posed a substantial gravity-related risk, because the falling of the brace frame away from the formwork panel would have generated a significant amount of force … .

An engineer employed by defendant Peri Formwork Systems, Inc., the manufacturer of the formwork structure, testified that if a formwork structure was disassembled on the ground, then the brace frames had to be secured by a crane before removing them, and if the formwork structure was standing upright, then each individual component had to be secured by a crane. He said that an unsecured brace frame freestanding in the air would pose a hazard to any worker standing nearby. Encarnacion v 3361 Third Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07746, First Dept 10-29-19

 

SCAFFOLD TIPPED PINNING PLAINTIFF’S HAND AGAINST A WALL; SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS BEING THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. A scaffold tipped and pinned his hand against a wall, and plaintiff’s actions did not constitute the sole proximate cause of the injuries:

Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Regardless of whether plaintiff’s hand was struck by the beam of the scaffold or the counterweights placed on the scaffold, this matter falls within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiff’s injuries were the direct result of the application of the force of gravity to the scaffold and the counterweights, and, although the scaffold and counterweights fell a short distance after the scaffold tipped, the elevation differential was not de minimis, as their combined weight of over 2,400 pounds was capable of generating a great amount of force during the short descent … .

The scaffold was a load that required securing for the purpose of plaintiff’s undertaking … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, the counterweights were not a safety device provided to secure the equipment being tied to the bracket, but were to balance a scaffold that would later be suspended from it.

Furthermore, the record establishes, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff and his coworker both testified that there was slack in the tieback at the time of the accident. Their foreman’s testimony that the scaffold tipped over due to overtightening of the tieback by plaintiff is speculative, as he did not witness the accident. The reports and expert affidavit submitted by defendants concluding that the accident was caused by overtightening are also speculative. In any event, even accepting the defense’s proof, it is still insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to sole proximate causation, since the record established that the scaffold tipped over in part due to being inadequately secured, raising only comparative negligence by plaintiff … . Ortega v Trinity Hudson Holding LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07743, First Dept 10-29-19

 

,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s absence from the judge’s ruling on whether Molineux evidence was admissible violated his right to be present at material stages of the trial. Although defendant was present when the Molineux arguments were made, the prosecutor made further arguments at the time of the ruling, which led to additional Molineux evidence being presented at trial:

… [T]he trial court conducted an initial Ventimiglia hearing with defendant present to address the prosecution’s Molineux application, which sought to admit evidence of defendant’s alleged prior assault on his then-girlfriend. After the parties made their arguments, the trial court postponed the issuance of its ruling. On the date the trial court intended to issue its ruling, it noted that defendant had not yet been produced, and defense counsel stated that he would prefer if the court issued its ruling with defendant present. The court stated that defendant’s presence was not required since it was merely issuing a legal ruling and began ruling on the application. The People then sought to include new factual details of the prior assault not mentioned at the earlier proceeding where defendant was present (i.e. that defendant choked his then-girlfriend to the point that she almost lost consciousness). The trial court advised the prosecutor to leave out any testimony regarding these new details since these facts were not included in the original application. However, the prosecutor stressed that these new facts were “critical” for the jury to understand why the victim feared defendant, and the trial court allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the witness.

Defendant should have been afforded the opportunity to be present given that the prosecutor’s introduction of these new facts, in effect, expanded the original Molineux application and involved factual matters of which defendant may have had peculiar knowledge. Defendant was in the best position to either deny the new factual details, point out errors in the prosecutor’s account of the details, or provide defense counsel with details that would have been useful in advancing his position … . People v Calderon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07707, First Dept 10-24-19

 

UNLOADING A HEAVY AIR CONDITIONING COIL FROM A TRUCK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that unloading a heavy coil from and truck was an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

Plaintiff was injured when an air conditioning system coil that weighed at least 300 pounds and was being transported secured to two dollies fell on his leg as he and three coworkers unloaded it from a truck. After plaintiff and his coworkers had brought the coil to ground level on the truck’s lift gate and were attempting to move it off the lift gate, a wheel of a dolly became caught in a gap on the lift gate, and the coil tipped over.

In view of the weight of the coil and the amount of force it was able to generate, even in falling a relatively short distance, plaintiff’s injury resulted from a failure to provide protection required by Labor Law § 240(1) against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential … . Moving the coil safely required either hoisting equipment or a device designed to secure the coil against tipping or falling over … . Ali v Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 2019 NY Slip Op 07544, First Dept 10-22-19

 

INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment  on the Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s work was not “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and was not part of the general contractor’s (Greenlight’s) contract with the apartment owners (the Dixons):

Because plaintiff Martin Topoli’s work installing window shades at the time of the accident does not constitute “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), that claim is dismissed …. The Labor Law § 241(6) claim is also dismissed, since plaintiff’s work is separate and distinct from the larger construction project … . Third-party defendants and apartment owners, Rebecca Dixon and Adam Dixon, modified the contract with general contractor Greenlight Construction Management Corp. to remove the provision and installation of window treatments from the scope of its work. The Dixons directly contracted with plaintiff’s employer for the installation of the window shades after the construction work was completed and they had moved in to the apartment. Greenlight’s return to the work site after the completion of construction, done to accommodate the Dixons’ new desire for larger window valances, was limited in nature and separate from plaintiff’s work. Topoli v 77 Bleecker St. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 10-22-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, setting aside the verdict, and ordering a new trial, determined that the motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted prior to the close the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff had brought an action against the City of New York pursuant to 42 USC 1983 alleging he had not received a fair trial:

The denial of a fair trial claim is a stand alone cause of action (see e.g. Garnett v Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F3d 265, 278-279 [2d Cir 2016]), which should not have been dismissed prior to the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief. CPLR 4401 permits a party to move for a directed verdict “after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue.” “[I]t is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party’s case against whom a directed verdict is sought” … , even if the ultimate success of a plaintiff’s cause of action is unlikely … . Cromedy v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07527, First Dept 10-22-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK REGISTRABLE OFFENSE; THE CIVIL APPEALS STANDARDS APPLY; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE PRESENTS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW AND THE RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant need not register as a sex offender in New York based upon a Connecticut misdemeanor conviction which was not equivalent to New York’s first-degree sexual abuse statute. The court noted that the civil appeals standards apply and preservation of the error was not required because the appeal presents a pure question of law, the issue could not have been avoided if raised below, and the record is sufficient for review:

In 2003, defendant was convicted in Connecticut of two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. To the extent relevant here, a person is guilty of that misdemeanor when he “subjects another person to sexual contact who is . . . physically helpless, or. . . subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent” (Conn Gen Stat § 53a-73a[a][1][D],[2]). The physical helplessness element would make the crime the equivalent of first-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.65[2]), a registrable offense in New York. In the absence of that element, the crime is the equivalent of third-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.55), which is not registrable.

Equivalency, based on a comparison of essential elements (see Corr Law § 168-a[1],[2][d]), may be established when “the conduct underlying the foreign conviction . . . is, in fact, within the scope of the New York offense” … . Here, the hearing court relied on undisputed documentary evidence that each victim “felt paralyzed” while being sexually abused by defendant; one victim “just froze” and the other “was afraid to confront” him. There is no indication, however, that either victim was physiologically incapable of speech, drugged into a stupor, or otherwise unable to communicate her unwillingness to submit to the sexual contact … . …

The issue is properly reviewable on this appeal, notwithstanding defendant’s failure to raise it before the hearing court. While we agree with the People that preservation considerations applicable to civil appeals apply here, those considerations do not bar review. This appeal presents a pure question of law. This issue could not have been avoided if raised before the hearing court, and it is reviewable on the existing record … .  Moreover, the hearing court expressly ruled on the issue in its detailed decision. People v Burden, 2019 NY Slip Op 07497, First Dept 10-17-19

 

POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE CHARGE DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE DECRIMINALIZING SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the indictment charging possession of a gravity knife based upon the statute decriminalizing such possession, even though the statute is not to be applied retroactively:

With respect to the weapon conviction, involving a gravity knife, the People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, have agreed that the indictment should be dismissed under the particular circumstances of the case and in light of recent legislation amending Penal Law § 265.01 to effectively decriminalize the simple possession of gravity knives, notwithstanding that this law does not apply retroactively. We agree … . People v Caviness, 2019 NY Slip Op 07494, First Dept 10-17-19

 

,

CONDITION OF PAROLE THAT PETITIONER NEVER ENTER QUEENS COUNTY WITH NO PROVISION FOR OBTAINING PERMISSION TO TRAVEL THERE VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the condition of petitioner’s post release supervision prohibiting him from entering Queens County (where the assault victim resides), without any option to travel there with permission, violated petitioner’s right to travel and right to associate and was arbitrary and capricious:

Release conditions that implicate certain fundamental rights, such as the right to travel and the right to associate, have been held permissible as long as “reasonably related” to a petitioner’s criminal history and future chances of recidivism … .

The special condition, as noted, provides, “I will not leave New York City . . . [including Queens] without written permission from my parole officer (including work purposes). I understand that I am not to travel under any circumstances to the borough of Queens.” Barring petitioner from the entire county of Queens under all circumstances, without any clear right to seek, or ability to obtain, a waiver from respondents, is a categorical ban impinging upon his rights to travel and association, and, for this reason alone, the travel restriction must be vacated as arbitrary and capricious, as it is not “reasonably related” to petitioner’s criminal history and future chances of recidivism … .

Accordingly, we remand this matter for respondents to issue a new travel restriction. The restriction must be clear and “reasonably related” to petitioner’s criminal history and future chance of recidivism … . Unlike the vacated restriction, the new restriction should specify that any travel restrictions are subject to case-by-case exceptions for legitimate reasons, which petitioner may request from his parole officer. Matter of Cobb v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2019 NY Slip Op 07480, First Dept 10-17-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s Article 78 action seeking to vacate an order by the respondent judge severing two counts which had been combined in an indictment and removing the charges to Family Court. The People objected to removing the prosecution of a 16-year-old to Family Court. In order the facilitate the removal, respondent judge severed the two counts. The People unsuccessfully argued the judged did not have the authority to sever the counts, and therefore could not send the charges to Family Court:

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Use of the writ is, and must be, restricted so as to prevent incessant interruption of pending judicial proceedings by those seeking collateral review of adverse determinations made during the course of those proceedings” … .

There is no merit in the People’s contention that the court lacks the authority to sever charges that were joined in a single indictment. This argument would have validity in cases where charges were properly joinable in a single indictment. However, the law is clear that the determination of whether the charges were, in fact, properly joinable in the first instance, is a duty of the court that is not delegated to the prosecution or the grand jury.

The court has a duty to examine the indictment to determine whether joinder is proper pursuant to CPL 200.20(a) or (b). Notably, the People have not provided any precedent to support their position to the contrary. Courts routinely rule on the issue of whether charges in an indictment are properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2) and sever those charges that are not … .

While the People disagree with the court’s finding that the … charges were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b), determination of this issue is not before us in this article 78 proceeding. Rather, we are only asked, and we only have the authority, to determine whether the court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. Matter of Vance v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07358, First Dept 10-10-19

 

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