You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

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

 

THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE PRIVATE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATED THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THAT ADDRESS; THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS VALID (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissent. determined that the description in the search warrant of the property to be searched was sufficient, notwithstanding that public records showed three residential units at that street address:

The dissent relies on allegations in defense counsel’s affirmation to argue for a more differentiated internal living structure. However, since an attorney’s affirmation is not evidence, the endeavor is unavailing. The dissent also relies on the affidavit submitted by defendant’s mother to counter the position of the People that the house was a private family residence. In view of the obvious likelihood of a compelling personal interest motivating the mother, we also decline to accept this as reliable evidence in the effort to controvert the warrant and the additional material in the record.

The only indication that the house legally could have been occupied as separate units was in the extrinsic materials supplied by defendant in moving to controvert the warrant, consisting of public records showing that the house contained three units. However, the fact that city records reflected that the house could be occupied as three units for tax or zoning purposes does not require a conclusion that it was. There likely are numerous legal two- or three-family residential houses that remain occupied by single families. The classifications of these houses relate to tax or land use matters that have no necessary bearing on the facial validity of a warrant. People v Duval, 2019 NY Slip Op 08542, First Dept 11-26-19

 

NO NEED TO SHOW LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; ENOUGH TO SHOW PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANY EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THE LADDER REMAINED UPRIGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall case was properly granted. The court noted there was no need to show the ladder was defective, only that nothing was provided to keep the ladder upright while plaintiff was using it:

Whether plaintiff slipped from the rung of the ladder or the ladder tipped over as he sought to steady himself while descending it, plaintiff’s testimony established prima facie that defendant failed to provide a safety device to insure that the ladder would remain upright while plaintiff used it to perform his statutorily covered work; plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective (Labor Law § 240[1] …).

In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s placement of the ladder where he could fall or step onto a stack of sheetrock was the sole proximate cause of his accident, since it presented no evidence that the appropriate equipment was available to plaintiff … . Moreover, because plaintiff established that defendant failed to provide an adequate safety device to protect him from elevation-related risks and that that failure was a proximate cause of his injuries, any negligence on plaintiff’s part in placing the ladder near the sheetrock is of no consequence … . Pierrakeas v 137 E. 38th St. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08539, First Dept 11-26-19

 

, , ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have considered a new theory of medical malpractice raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment:

… [T]he complaint and bill of particulars were only sufficient to put defendant on notice of an allegation that, in January 2013, he failed to properly compare the 2013 EC [echocardiagram] with the 2011 EC contained in decedent’s medical record, and determine that a dilation in decedent’s aorta had increased. Plaintiffs’ papers were insufficient to put defendant on notice of plaintiffs’ new theory of liability – raised for the first time in her expert’s opinion – that he deviated from the standard of care in August 2011, when interpreting the 2011 EC … . Here, where negligence is specifically alleged to have occurred only between December 2012 and January 2013, we conclude that the vague, ambiguous, nonspecific and open-ended assertion “prior or subsequent thereto” contained in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars failed to put defendant on notice of a claim that he acted negligently in August 2011. Carroll v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08524, First Dept 11-26-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S JUMPING FROM A STALLED ELEVATOR WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s jumping out of a stalled elevator was an unforeseeable consequence of the elevator malfunction:

Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to exit a service elevator in the building where she worked after the elevator stalled near the top floor of the building. A coworker testified that the elevator shook and the lights went out for a few seconds. Plaintiff testified that she used the intercom in the elevator to contact the building’s doorman, who said he would call the elevator mechanic. A few minutes later, another coworker, who was also in the stalled elevator, pried the door open. Plaintiff saw that the elevator was about 2½ feet above the floor level, and decided to jump out, believing she could do so safely. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s act of jumping from the stalled elevator was an unforeseeable, superseding cause of her accident, which terminates any potential liability of defendant elevator maintenance company for negligent maintenance or repair of the elevator … . Given the evidence that the elevator had been stalled for only a few minutes and that the doorman had been contacted, there was no emergency situation necessitating plaintiff’s jump from the elevator … . Estrella v Fujitec Am., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08501, First Dept 11-21-19

 

THE ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT CHARGE WAS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR TRIAL PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s conviction, determined the charged crime was a legal impossibility:

“[A]ttempted gang assault in the second degree is a legal impossibility for trial purposes” … . “One cannot attempt to create an unintended result” … . People v Delacruz, 2019 NY Slip Op 08498, First Dept 11-21-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE COURT’S MOTION TIMETABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge should not have refused to consider a late response to the defense motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (CPL 30.30):

Clearly, trial courts have considerable discretion in administering litigation and managing their dockets … . We agree with the dissent that parties are obligated to honor court-imposed deadlines. However, it is also axiomatic that justice is best served when cases are decided on the merits. …

Here, the People sought to file their opposition papers on the decision date, some 15 days after the due date. This was not the situation in People v Cole, 73 NY2d 957 [1989], which was cited by the motion court, where the People failed to submit any opposition papers. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that there was any history of dilatory conduct or a blatant disregard of court directives on the part of the People. Rather, this appears to be an isolated lapse.

While we are certainly cognizant of the frustration occasioned by the failure of the People to adhere to the motion schedule, summarily granting the defense motion to dismiss without considering the merits of the response the People had prepared was improper. As the People argue, the charges here are serious. Defendant was indicted on numerous weapons possession charges. Dismissal of those charges without a full and complete determination of the motion to dismiss on its merits was unduly harsh. Less drastic remedies, including charging the People for the 15-day delay, were available … . People v Lora, 2019 NY Slip Op 08478, First Dept 11-21-19

 

,

THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT CONTROL WHETHER THE COURT OR THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINES THE MATTER IS ARBITRABLE; HERE THAT DETERMINATION HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO THE ARBITRATOR BY THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined that the contract controls and the arbitrator, not the court, must rule on whether the matter is arbitrable:

The motion court correctly declined to enjoin the arbitration proceeding filed by respondent Baltimore Orioles with the American Arbitration Association [AAA]. The duty to arbitrate arises from contract … .

Pursuant to section 19.3 of the partnership agreement, the Orioles and the Nationals agreed to arbitrate “any disputes” before the AAA when MLB has … a financial interest, and to do so pursuant to AAA Commercial Rules. Those rules include Rule 7(a), pursuant to which an “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.”

These provisions evince a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate the threshold arbitrability question of whether MLB had a financial interest in the Nationals to the AAA … . …

“When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue. That is true even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless” … . Matter of WN Partner, LLC v Baltimore Orioles Ltd. Partnership, 2019 NY Slip Op 08383, First Dept 11-19-19

 

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