You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEUROLOGIST AND DEFENDANT CARDIOLOGIST WERE JOINTLY DIAGNOSING AND TREATING PLAINTIFF FOR HER STROKE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NEUROLOGIST SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THAT A TEST ORDERED BY THE NEUROLOGIST, BUT TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CARDIOLOGIST, WAS DONE WITHIN 48 HOURS (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant doctors’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether defendants were jointly diagnosing and treating the plaintiff. Defendant neurologist ordered a trans-esophageal electrocardiogram (TEE), to be done by a cardiologist, to determine the origin of plaintiff’s stroke. Plaintiff alleged defendant neurologist should have made sure the TEE was performed immediately. The TEE was performed more than two week’s after plaintiff’s initial stroke:

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent for scheduling a TEE, the definitive diagnostic tool to detect the presence of atrial clots, more than two weeks after the patient’s initial stroke was confirmed and she was referred to the cardiology defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants should have scheduled the TEE to take place within 48 hours, or, alternatively, placed the patient on anticoagulants as a prophylactic measure.

The expert affidavit submitted by plaintiff raises an issue of fact whether the neurology defendants retained a duty to ensure that the patient received a timely TEE insofar as Dr. Xie referred her to the cardiology defendants as part of his overall neurological assessment, and he continued to manage her condition throughout. Under these circumstances, questions exist whether defendants were engaged in “joint action in diagnosis or treatment” so as to make it appropriate to impose liability on one for the negligence of the other … . Lin v Yi Xie, 2019 NY Slip Op 08943, First Dept 12-12-19

 

, , ,

TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO IDENTIFIED PLAINTIFF AS THE PERSON FLEEING THE SCENE OF A CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR A TERRY STOP; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT VACATED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the plaintiff’s judgment and ordering a new trial in this false arrest and malicious prosecution action, determined that the testimony of the defense witness who identified plaintiff as fleeing the scene of a crime should not have been precluded. The name and address of the witness had been provided to plaintiff four years before the trial and the fact that she had since moved and did not want to disclose her new address to any party was not something the defense could control. In addition, the jury was given no guidance on the criteria for an alleged wrongful stop of the plaintiff by police (reasonable suspicion, not probable cause), despite the questions concerning the stop on the special verdict sheet:

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding testimony from the witness who identified plaintiff to the police as an individual she had seen fleeing the scene of a crime. Defendants satisfied their discovery obligation by providing the witness’s last known address and telephone number during discovery, more than four years before trial. Thus, there could have been no surprise or prejudice warranting the preclusion … . While the witness subsequently moved, she declined to disclose her new address to any parties to the suit, a factor defendants could not control … . As defendants did not know her new address, they had no obligation under CPLR 3101(h). Nor should defendants have been sanctioned for the fact that the wtness did not wish to discuss the case with plaintiff’s counsel when counsel called her. Notably, plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to contact the witness until two months before trial and did not attempt to obtain a nonparty deposition of the witness during discovery. Defendant offered to have the witness further confirm these facts, under oath and outside the presence of the jury. Under these circumstances, the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering a hearing at which defendants’ trial attorney would be subject to questioning by plaintiff’s trial attorney, and precluding the witness’s testimony when defense counsel declined to participate in such a hearing. Given that the witness would have offered highly relevant and non-cumulative trial testimony, the error was not harmless … .

It was error to include on the special verdict sheet a questions as to a wrongful stop (Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 [1968]), because there was no charge given instructing the jury on the legal standard that must be applied in resolving those claims. The jury was never told that a stop is improper if the detaining officer does not have “reasonable suspicion” that the detainee committed a crime, which is less demanding than the “probable cause” standard applicable to the malicious prosecution claims … . That the jury sent a note requesting clarification on the question indicated its awareness of the lack of guidance …. .  Onilude v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08925, First Dept 12-12-19

 

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; QUESTION OF FACT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1)  “falling object” cause of action:

The record reflects that plaintiff was on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction, when he was struck and injured by a falling piece of DensGlass, an exterior sheetrock material, which matched the size of a missing piece of sheetrock one floor above. Plaintiff was in the process of dismantling the bridge that was linked to the exterior hoist elevator.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on the record evidence that a piece of the exterior facade of the building still under construction fell on him, that workers were performing patch work to the DensGlass on the floors above plaintiff, and that the exterior facade was not complete … . Furthermore, defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the § 241(6) claim should have been denied because there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the area where the accident occurred was “normally exposed to falling material or objects” requiring that plaintiff be provided with “suitable overhead protection” (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.7[a][1] …). Garcia v SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08791, First Dept 12-10-19

 

,

SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE WAS OVERLY BROAD; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the search warrant issued for defendant’s cell phone was  overly broad in that it authorized a search going back eight months before the conduct alleged in the warrant:

The search warrant for defendant’s phones was overbroad. The application alleged that, on September 1, 2016, defendant sent texts to a 13 year old making indecent proposals, and called her on the same day. The warrant authorized examination of defendant’s internet usage from January 1 to September 13, 2016, and also authorized, without a time limitation, examination of essentially all the other data on defendant’s phones. This failed to satisfy the particularity requirement of both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 12 of New York’s Constitution … .

The pivotal question here is whether there was probable cause that evidence of the crimes specified in the warrant would be found in the broad areas specified. Notably, the warrant application alleged two discrete crimes and specified conduct that “began” on September 1, 2016, and, as far as the available information indicated, occurred entirely on that date. While it was of course possible that defendant’s phone contained evidence of the specified offenses that predated September 1, there were no specific allegations to that effect. …

The information available to the warrant-issuing court did not support a reasonable belief that evidence of the crimes specified in the warrant would be found in all of the “locations” within defendant’s cell phone to which the warrant authorized access — for example, in defendant’s browsing history six or seven months before September 1, 2016, or in his emails, the examination of which was authorized without any time restriction … . People v Thompson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08772, First Dept 12-5-19

 

COURTROOM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S TESTIMONY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering an new trial, determined the defendant’s family members should not have been excluded from the courtroom duing the undercover officer’s testimony:

The People concede that the trial court erred in excluding defendant’s family members from some parts of the trial … . Here, the People failed to show specifically that defendant’s family posed a threat to the undercover officer’s safety. The court’s error requires reversal of the conviction … .

The People acknowledge that a harmless error/lack of prejudice analysis does not apply to courtroom closure errors. Nevertheless, relying on nonbinding Second Circuit case law, they argue that reversal is not warranted because the exclusion of defendant’s family was so trivial as not to implicate defendant’s right to a public trial (see e.g. Smith v Hollins, 448 F3d 533 [2d Cir 2006]). We need not decide whether a triviality exception exists under State law, because even applying that standard, the closure here cannot be characterized as trivial. Defendant’s family was kept out of the courtroom during the entirety of the direct examination, and part of the cross-examination, of an undercover officer who was one of the People’s key witnesses. That undercover was one of the officers involved in the narcotics operation that formed the basis of the charge against defendant. He set up the meeting to purchase the drugs, gave the buy money to defendant’s accomplice, and received crack cocaine in return. Thus, the exclusion of defendant’s family members “from the crux of the [People’s] case” was not trivial … . People v Ruffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 08771, First Dept 12-5-19

 

,

WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined the proof that defendant simply possessed a box cutter was not enough:

While feeling around defendant’s waist, the officer felt a metal object in defendant’s shorts. Upon further search, the officer saw the butt end of a box cutter sticking out of the fly of defendant’s underwear. The razor of the box cutter was in its sheath and not exposed. He later tested the box cutter to see if it was sharp, and he was able to cut paper with it. Officer McKeever never saw defendant holding the box cutter and did not see him argue with or threaten anyone. * * *

As the jury was charged, a “dangerous instrument” is “any instrument, article or substance, . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” … . An object “becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury” … .

Here, there was no proof that defendant used the box cutter, attempted to use it, or threatened to use it as required under the plain terms of the statute in order for it to be a dangerous instrument … . People v Knowles, 2019 NY Slip Op 08770, First Dept 12-5-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, A PODIATRIST, USING ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (OZONE THERAPY), TREATED PLAINTIFF FOR LYME DISEASE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted because defendant did not submit proof of the appropriate standard of care. The defendant, a podiatrist, treated plaintiff for Lyme disease with “ozone therapy:”

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff testified that after he saw an advertisement by defendant in a magazine about alternative medicine he sought treatment from defendant for Lyme disease. Defendant is a licensed podiatrist who the record shows told plaintiff that he could treat a host of incurable non-podiatric conditions.  * * *

Defendant has a history of being accused of using his putative study of ozone therapy’s ostensible benefits in treating podiatric conditions as a cover for his treatment of non-podiatric conditions … . In the present case, the record reflects that the putative treatment was not for a podiatric condition, and thus that defendant was practicing medicine outside of the medical confines of podiatry … , which raises an issue of professional misconduct … .

Defendant failed to make the necessary prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, requiring reversal and denial of his motion for summary judgment regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Defendant failed to establish the standard of care with which he should have complied for the treatment of Lyme disease, as to which he submitted no expert evidence … . Thus, on this record, it cannot be determined whether defendant deviated from accepted standards of practice. A trial is required on the issue whether defendant’s treatment proximately caused the physical and neurological manifestations of injury alleged by plaintiff. Georgievski v Robins, 2019 NY Slip Op 08619, First Dept 12-3-19

 

SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE US VIRGIN ISLANDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT BY A STATE COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a subpoena issued by the Attorney General of the United State Virgin Islands (USVI) should have been quashed for failure to comply with CPLR 3119:

The subpoena … failed to meet the procedural requirements for out-of-state subpoenas because it was not issued “under authority of a court of record” (see generally CPLR 3119[a][1], [4] … ). Although the subpoena need not have been issued in connection with a pending litigation, there must have been some court involvement, such as the issuance of a commission by a state court clerk or signature of the subpoena by a state court judge … . We reject respondents’ argument that administrative subpoenas are outside the scope of CPLR 3119 and not subject to any restrictions on issuance. Matter of American Express Co. v United States Virgin Is. Dept. of Justice, 2019 NY Slip Op 08618, First Dept 12-3-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER SIGNED, IT IS CLEAR THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY IT (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department noted that a contract need not be signed to be valid. Here the contract was a “termination agreement” which addressed a real estate broker’s entitlement to commissions for sales pending upon termination:

It is true that neither party signed the Termination Agreement. However, where the evidence supports a finding of intent to be bound, a contract will be unenforceable for lack of signature only if the parties “positive[ly] agree[d] that it should not be binding until so reduced to writing and formally executed” … . While the Termination Agreement contained a counterparts clause and signature lines indicating that it could be accepted by signature and countersignature, it did not positively state that the parties could assent only by signing. By contrast, the Engagement Agreement, also drafted by defendants, expressly provided that “in unsigned form [it] does not become an offer of any kind and does not become capable of acceptance.” Thus, defendants knew how to draft an agreement that could be accepted only by signature, but they did not so draft the Termination Agreement. The evidence, i.e., the parties’ months-long email exchanges, during which plaintiff submitted his list of pending transactions, defendants drafted the Termination Agreement and forwarded it to plaintiff, and the parties disagreed about the extent to which transactions listed by plaintiff were covered, supports a finding that the parties intended to be bound by the Termination Agreement, despite their failure to sign it … . Lerner v Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08611, First Dept 12-3-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE EXISTED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER SUCH THAT THE BROKER COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR A DEMOLITION PROJECT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there is a question of fact whether a special relationship existed between plaintiffs and defendant insurance broker, thereby making the broker liable for the failure to procure adequate coverage for a demolition contract:

Issues of fact exist as to whether a special relationship arose between plaintiff STB Investments Corporation and its managing agent plaintiff 303 West 42nd Street Realty Co. (plaintiffs), on the one hand, and defendant insurance broker, on the other, that imposed on defendant a duty to advise plaintiffs as to insurance coverage that would have included the loss arising from plaintiffs’ demolition project … . Plaintiffs contend that the special relationship arose from an interaction with defendant in which they relied on defendant’s expertise as to coverage. There is evidence that plaintiffs’ property manager, who allegedly had never before purchased insurance for a demolition project, requested that defendant obtain adequate coverage for that particular risk, and that defendant agreed to do so, reviewed the demolition contract as part of its efforts, and discussed with plaintiffs the demolition contractor’s coverage in the larger context of determining the appropriate level of coverage to obtain for plaintiffs … . STB Invs. Corp. v Sterling & Sterling, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08606, First Dept 12-3-19

 

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